Mr.Azeezulla , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

ITA 39/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5487 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN SHRI BALAK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 39 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 2 - 13 MR. AZEEZULLA, N. P. FACTORY MAIN ROAD, NAGAVARA LAYOUT, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R. T. NAGAR, BENGALURU 560032. PAN: A HKP A 0014F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (2) (2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BALAKRISHNAN N. ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 27 .0 2 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 7 .0 2 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) - 7, BENGALURU DATED 17.10.2017 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 7 GROUNDS BUT IN COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO CIT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION BECAUSE ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT PROVIDED BY CIT (A). IN SUPPORT OF THIS CON TENTION, MY ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) AN D IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS PARA, IT IS NOTED BY CIT (A) THAT ON REQUEST O F THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANTING TIME TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUN DS, TIME WAS ALLOWED AND THE CASE WAS FIXED ON 16.10.2017. HE SUBMITTED THAT ADM ITTEDLY, NO ONE COULD APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) ON THIS DATE AND HE PASSED TH E IMPUGNED ORDER ON 17.10.2017. HE CONCEDED THAT THIS IS A LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SOME MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOU LD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CIT (A). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO CIT (A) SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS BEFORE CIT (A). ITA NO. 39/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 2 LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CI T (A) BUT HE DID NOT RAISE SERIOUS OBJECTION AGAINST THE REQUEST OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESTORE BACK THE MATTER TO CIT (A). 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF CIT (A). I FEEL THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE M ATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH SIDES. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR ON THE MERI T AND I DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT ON MERIT OF THE CASE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.