Mumtaz Banu, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(3), CHENNAI

ITA 499/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5469 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.499/Chny/2019 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Smt. Mumtaz Banu, The Gems, Flat No.2, Ground Floor, G-2, Old No.3/ New No.5, V.T.Colony Extension Ayanavaram, Chennai-600023 Vs The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Chennai-34 PAN No. : AHTPB 2707 R (अपीलाथŎ /Appellant) .. (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Arjunraj, CA राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Salem, dated 27.07.2018 for the assessment year 2009- 2010. 2. On perusal of the record, we found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 37 days. In this regard, ld. AR of the assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein the reasons for delay, to which ld. DR did not object. Considering the affidavit filed by the assessee ITA No.499/CHNY/2019 2 and with the consent of parties, we condone the delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal and appeal is heard finally. 3. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not provided proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the impugned order, which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that if the assessee is given one more opportunity, then the assessee will be able to substantiate its claim properly before the CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, ld. DR though relied on the orders of lower authorities, however, agreed to the contention raised by the ld. AR of the assessee to send back the matter to CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the relevant material placed in the record of the Tribunal. First of all, on perusal of the grounds of appeal, the assessee in Ground No.4 has submitted that no proper opportunity of being heard has been provided to the assessee. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of no valid evidences filed by the assessee in support of his claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, there will be no loss to the Revenue if one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to ITA No.499/CHNY/2019 3 represent its case before the CIT(A). Accordingly, with the consent of ld. DR, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of CIT(A) to pass a speaking and reasoned order considering the findings of AO and the submissions of the assessee, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce all the relevant documents supporting to his claim before the CIT(A). The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) in early disposal of the case. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced as per Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules,1963 on 31/03/ 2022. Sd/- (C.M.GARG) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक Dated 31/03/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुƅ / CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, Chennai / DR, ITAT, Chennai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.