M/s ITI Ltd., Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 484/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57456 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FARAHATI HUSSAIN QURESHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.484 & 485/BANG/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07) M/S. I.T.I. LIMITED, I T I BHAVAN, DOORVANINAGAR, BANGALOR-500016 . APPELLANT. PAN AAACI 4625C VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(4), BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : MR.BALRAM R. RAO. RESPONDENT BY : MR. FARAHATI HUSSAIN QURESHI. DATE OF HEARING : 30.1.2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.1.2012. O R D E R PER SHRI N.K. SAINI, A.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST COMMON ORDER DATED 27.1.2011 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, BANGALORE. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVE D AND APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO THESE AND ARE BEING DISPOSED BY THIS COMMON ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS RELATES TO THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS EX-PARTE W ITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUE ON MERIT. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SERVICING OF TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSSES OF RS.489,20,84,106 AND RS.345,44,39,029 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN D ISALLOWANCES WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENTS 2 ITA NOS.484 & 485/BANG/2011 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREIN AFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGA INST THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED TH E APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION AND IDENTICAL OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN PARAS 3 & 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER : 3. NOTICES OF HEARINGS WERE SERVED ON THE APPELL ANT ON 6.8.2010 & 29.11.2010 FIXING THE DATES OF HEARING ON 20.8.2010 & 10.12.20 10 RESPECTIVELY. THE A.R. APPEARED ON 16.9.2010 AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. DESP ITE SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS, NO ARGUMENTS WERE PUT FORWARD ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL . THIS REFLECTS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT SERIOUS AND DESIROUS OF PURSUING T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THE APPEALS INFRUCT UOUS AND DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VER Y OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT GIVEN DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS EX-PARTE IN LIMINE. HOWEVER, NO FINDING HAS BEEN G IVEN ON MERIT OF THE CASES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 15.9.2010 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN STEAD OF COMMUNICATING THE NEW DATE OF HEARING, DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE LEARNED C IT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON MERIT AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUB MITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY CONSIDERING THE NON-CO-OPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE AS SESSEE, WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT ICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AGITATED BEFORE HIM ON MERIT AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 27.1.11 BY STATING AT PAGE NO.1 OF THE ORDER THAT THE DATES OF HEARING WERE ON 20.8.2010, 16.9.2010, 4.10.2010, 12.11.2010, 29.11.2010, 10.12.2010 & 24. 11.2011. HOWEVER IN THE BODY OF THE 3 ITA NOS.484 & 485/BANG/2011 ORDER AT PARA 3, HE MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICES OF H EARINGS WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 6.8.2010 & 29.11.2010 FIXING THE DATES OF HEARING O N 20.8.2010 AND 10.12.2010 RESPECTIVELY. IT APPEARS THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED ON TH E ASSESSEE FOR FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 24.1.2011. THEREFORE, IT SEEMS THAT A PROPER AND D UE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDER ATION AND REMAND THE CASE BACK TO HIS FILE TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPER ATE AND NOT TO SEEK UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE ADJOURNMENT. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JAN., 2012.) SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMB ER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED: 30.1.2012. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, - B BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE .