SRINIWAS AKKEPELLI GADIPELLI, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT TDS RG 3, MUMBAI

ITA 426/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2675 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C W ANGOLWKAR SR
• Assessee Lawyers: SRINIVAS AKKEPELLI GADIPELLI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.426/M/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 ) I.T.A. NO.427/M/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 2011 ) SHRI SRINIVAS AKKEPELLI GADIPELLI , R.NO.AG - 22, GANESH MURTI NAGAR, CUFFE PARADE RD, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400005. / VS. ADDL. CIT - TDS, RANGE - 3, MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAFPG5738E ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SRINIVAS AKKEPELLI GADIPELLI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.W. ANGOLWKAR, SR. AR / DATE OF HEARING : 19 .07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 9 .07.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEY ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 2010 AND 2010 - 11. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEALS IS GIVEN IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAS OF THIS ORDER. 2. IN THESE APPEALS, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT, BY THE CIT - 14, MUMBAI COMMONLY DATED 7.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11. THE SAID ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE REVENUE OFFICERS FOR THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO DELIVER THE REQUISITE STATEMENTS WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED UNDER THE TDS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE APPEARED IN PERSON AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT (A) WERE CONDUCTED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PLEADED FOR GRANTING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HE FURTHER 2 REQUESTED FOR REMANDING THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FACILITATING HIM WITH PROPER REPRESENTATION AND EVIDENCES. ASSESSEE ALSO PROMISED TO APPEAR THIS TIME IN PERSON WITHOUT FAIL AND FILE THE EXPLANATION GIVING THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FURNISHING OF THE STAT EMENTS IN TIME. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHROTIES. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE PASSED EX - PARTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ORDERS DO NOT INDICATE THE GRANTING OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICE D FROM THE ORDERS THAT THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OR THE R EASON FOR NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE REQUIRED TO BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A). WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO ADJUDICATE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT (A) WITHOUT FAIL. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE R ESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JULY, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - ( SANJAY GARG ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 19.07.2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 3 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI