M/s SSS Spinners, Chilakaluripet, Visakhapatnam V. The ITO, Ward-2(1), Guntur

ITA 482/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7165 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SUNDER SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO 482 OF 10 SSS SPINNERS CHILAKALURIPET PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 482/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S. S.S.S. SPINNERS, CHILAKALURIPET VS. ITO WARD-2(1) GUNTUR (APPELLANT) PAN NO: ABBRS 8570 M (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, SR.DR ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), GUNTUR AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 01.THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD NOT GIVEN THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN SPITE OF THE APPELLANTS GENUINE REQU EST FOR ADJOURNMENT. 02. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD WRONGLY CONCLUDED ABOUT T HE HISTORY OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT HEARING FROM APPELLANTS V ERSION. 03. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE BOOKS WE RE WITH COMMERCIAL TAX AUTHORITIES. THIS ITSELF EVIDENT THA T THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 04. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE ITA NO 482 OF 10 SSS SPINNERS CHILAKALURIPET PAGE 2 OF 3 APPELLANT WERE AUDITED AND HENCE ADDITIONS WERE NOT WARRANTED. 05. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD NOT CONSIDERED OTHER GROU NDS OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRI EF. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,20,030/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUT INY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPOND TO THEM. THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE FIRM F ILED A LETTER SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE PLEA THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT W ERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER. THE SAID REASON WAS FOU ND TO BE FALSE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE INQUIRIES WITH THE COMME RCIAL TAX OFFICER. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE T HE ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT A ND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.48,26,670/-. THE ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A), BUT FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE HER ALSO DESPITE GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. HENCE THE FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND DISMISSED THE APPEA L. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES IN THIS REGARD AND PER USED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE T AX AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REQU ESTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE AND ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT THE ISSUES MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING THEM AFRESH. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PLEA MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIE W OF THE SUBMISSIONS CITED ABOVE, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE DONE DE-NOVO AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME, WE DO NOT WANT TO GIVE A WRONG SIGNAL TO ENCOURAGE ITA NO 482 OF 10 SSS SPINNERS CHILAKALURIPET PAGE 3 OF 3 DISOBEDIENCE AMONGST THE ASSESSEES. KEEPING THE AB OVE ASPECT IN MIND AND ALSO IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DO THE ASSESSMENT DE-NOVO AFTER GIVING NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, THE SAME IS SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.5000/- TO BE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNT IN WHICH TRIBUNAL FEES ARE BEING DEPOSITED. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXTEND FULL CO-OPERATION BY FURNISHING ALL THE DETAILS THAT MAY BE CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREA TED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE: 28-02- 2011 COPY TO 1 SHRI D.L.S.V.RAMANA BABU, FCA, POLINENI ASSOCIATE S, 47-1-119/1 GF 1, KONETI ENCLAVE, 6 TH LINE, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530016 2 THE ITO WARD-2(1) GUNTUR 3 4. THE CIT GUNTUR THE CIT(A), GUNTUR 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM