S.Nagarajan, Salem V. ITO, Salem

ITA 500/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90716 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K VENKATESH PRABHU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . , ' # , $ & BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO . 500/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) MR. S.NAGARAJAN, PLOT NO.14, JUDGES ROAD I CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR, IYENTHIRUMALIGAI, OPP.RATIONSHOP SALEM-636 008. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(5) 3, GANDHI ROAD, SALEM-636 007. PAN:ABBPN6989K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. K.VENKATESH PRABHU, C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MR. P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD JUNE, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 TH JULY, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM DATED 29.01.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS ON MERITS IN DI SALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE ACT INC LUDING THE GROUND FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 2 ITA NO.500 /MDS/2015 2. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND W ITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY. THEREFORE HE PLEADS FOR CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY AN D ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GI VEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THE BENCH EXPRESSED THAT WHY THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD AGAIN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER PROV IDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAVE NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IN REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ON GOING THRO UGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED EX-PART E ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . THUS, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHO SHALL 3 ITA NO.500 /MDS/2015 DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTE R PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . $ ) ( & () ) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (CHALLA NAGENDR A PRASAD ) + / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( + / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, - /DATED 29 TH JULY, 2015 SOMU /0 10 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 6 /DR 6. /GF .