Shri. Chittibabu Bheemaneni, Bangalore V. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 395/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7358 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R RAMESH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAN D SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO S . 394 TO 396 /BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2010 - 11 TO 2012 - 13 SHRI CHITTIBABU BHEEMANENI, NO. 19, 5 TH CROSS, SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560 003. PAN: ABGPC 0995F VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI B.R. RAMESH, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 13 . 1 1 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .1 1 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-2, BANGALORE DATED 18.1 2.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2012-13. ALL THESE APPEA LS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT IN ALL THE THREE YEARS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED BY THE AO U/S . 144 BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO SUBMIT VARIOUS DE TAILS ASKED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS CREDIT CARDS WITH VARIOUS BANKS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTE D FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE NO W THOSE DETAILS ARE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM STANDARD CHARTERED BA NK AND AMERICAN ITA NOS. 394 TO 396/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 EXPRESS BANK AND THEREFORE, THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES . THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY RE STORATION BACK TO THE AO OR CIT (A) BECAUSE THE AO AS WELL AS CIT (A) HAS GI VEN VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T AVAILED THE SAME. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE FIRST LETTER OF HEARING WAS ISSUE BY CIT ( A) ON 07.07.2015 FOR EACH OF THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND IN REPLY, THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 23.07.2015 AND IT WAS SUBMITTED IN THIS LETTE R THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES SOME TIME TO FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. TH EREAFTER ON 27.08.2015, ONE MORE LETTER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CI T (A) STATING THAT LD. AR OF ASSESSEE IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE REQUESTE D FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO WRITTEN LETTER DAT ED 23.09.2015 AND 28.10.2015 TO CIT (A) ASKING FOR MORE TIME. THEREA FTER AS PER PARA NO. 2.2 OF ORDER OF CIT (A), THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.11.2015 BUT IT IS STATED BY CIT (A) THAT EVEN ON THIS DATE, NO ONE APPEARED AND THEREAFTER, THE CIT (A) DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING A COMBINED ORDER ON 18.12.2015. HENCE IT IS SEEN THA T ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND FILE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT LD. AR OF ASSESSEE WAS WRITING REGULAR LETTERS TO CIT(A) SEEK ING TIME TO MAKE COMPLIANCE. NOW THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT HE HAS OBTA INED THE REQUIRED DETAILS IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS CREDIT CARDS OF STANDARD CHAR TERED BANK AND AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE US SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FIL E OF LD. CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES . HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO ITS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND SHOULD SUBMIT ALL THE EVIDENCES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 394 TO 396/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 WANTS TO RELY AND THEREAFTER, THE CIT (A) SHOULD PA SS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW. WE DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT REGARDING THE MERI T OF ANY ISSUE IN ANY OF THE YEARS. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (LALIET KUMAR) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. /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.