TAMARA HOSPITALITY VENTURES P LTD, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CORP CIR-3(1), CHENNAI

ITA 3535/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4320 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3535/CHNY/2018 & S.P. NO.16/CHNY/2019 (IN ITA NO.3535/CHNY/2018) ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S TAMARA HOSPITALITY VENTURES PVT. LTD., OLD NO.165, 4 TH FLOOR, LOTUS COURT, THAMBU CHETTY STREET, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : AACCT 4460 E V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. ( APPELLANT & PETITIONER) (,-.// RESPONDENT) ./ 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE ,-./ 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.02.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : TODAY, THE STAY PETITION WAS POSTED FOR HEARING. BY THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE APPEAL WAS ALSO TA KEN UP FOR HEARING. 2 I.T.A. NO.3535/CHNY/18 S.P. NO.16/CHNY/19 2. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE MOTHER OF ASSESSEES REPRESENTAT IVE EXPIRED, THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEA LS) DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE NECESSARY MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO LOANS AND ADVANCES BORROWED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. THE LD .COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY MATERIAL BY REMANDING BACK THE MA TTER TO THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR RECONSIDERATION. 3. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FIL E NECESSARY MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO LOANS AND ADVANCES, ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. D.R., THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY HAS TO RECONSIDER THE MATERIAL AT FIRST. IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS THE RIGHT PERSON TO RECONSIDER THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., TH E MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF CIT(A PPEALS). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEES REPRESENT ATIVE EXPIRED, 3 I.T.A. NO.3535/CHNY/18 S.P. NO.16/CHNY/19 THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE C IT(APPEALS) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING. THE CIT (APPEALS) MAINLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILED NECESSARY MATERIAL FOR VERIFICATION . THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE. GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD DEFINITELY P ROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. 5. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OR THE CIT(APPEALS), WHO HAS TO RECONSIDER THE MATERIAL? AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE ING THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO RE-EXAMI NE THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHALL BE RECONSI DERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAT ERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH IN 4 I.T.A. NO.3535/CHNY/18 S.P. NO.16/CHNY/19 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES AND THE STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. KRI. 0 ,389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ./ /APPELLANT 2. ,-./ /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-11, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-3, CHENNAI 5. 9< ,3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.