T.John Rajasekar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Madurai

ITA 396/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8141 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SASIKUMAR IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 396/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-2012. SHRI. T. JOHN RAJASEKAR, PROP. MONICA SURGICALS & MONICA ENTERPRISES, NO.8, LOURDU NAGAR, 6 TH STREET, K. PUDUR, MADURAI 625 007. [PAN ADSPJ 6685K] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I(2) MADURAI. ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SASIKUMAR, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 13-10-2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-10-2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITS GRIEVAN CE IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT DE CIDE THE CASE ON MERIT BUT HAD DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT IN APPEARANCE. ITA NO. 396/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESS EE COULD NOT ENTER INTO APPEARANCE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHEN THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE HAD A GOOD CASE ON MERITS, SINCE THE ADDITION DUE TO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION AND ADDITION DUE TO UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN AXIS BANK A CCOUNT, COULD ALL BE EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE WITH EVIDENCE. AS PER LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) WAS OBLIGED UNDER LAW TO DISPOSE THE CASE ON MERIT AND OUGHT N OT HAVE DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT IN ENTERING APPEARANCE. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRO NGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SUB (6) TO SECTION 250 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHA LL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE SECTION THAT LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL STATING THE POI NTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION GIVEN BY HIM AND REAS ON FOR REACHING SUCH DECISION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NO DOUBT THE APPEAL WAS POSTED ITA NO. 396/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: FOR HEARING NINE TIMES BUT ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED APPEARANCE. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) D ID NOT PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE OF AMENDMENT OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE A CT REPRODUCED BY US ABOVE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONSIDERING TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE MATTER HAS TO BE REM ITTED BACK TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DISPOS AL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN ONE LAST CH ANCE FOR ENTERING APPEARANCE AND SUPPORTING ITS CASE WITH EVIDENCE. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 28 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 28TH OCTOBER, 2016 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF