H.M. Muni Reddy, Malur V. ITO, Kolar

ITA 534/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0544 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S SREELEKHA
• Assessee Lawyers: R CHANDRASHEKAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 15

Judgement Text

ITA.533 TO 535/B/09 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'B' BEFORE SHRI. K. P. T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. N. L. KALRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. I.T.A.NO.533/BANG/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2 005-06) 2. I.T.A.NO.534/BANG/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2 005-06) 3. I.T.A.NO.535/BANG/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2 005-06) 1. SHRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY, CHICKKATIRUPATI, MALUR TALUK 2. SHRI. H. M. MUNI REDDY, HARNIGHATTA, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK 3. SHRI. VARKEY VALIADTH, PRINCIPAL, JYOTHI SCHOOL, MADIKERI CROSS, CHINTAMANI TALUK .. APPELLANTS V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1/II, KOLAR .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. V. S. SREELEKHA O R D E R PER K. P. T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT : THESE APPEALS ARE BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FOR THE S AME YEAR BUT ALMOST ON IDENTICAL FACTS. THEREFORE, WE DISPOSE O F ALL THESE APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. ITA.533 TO 535/B/09 PAGE - 2 I.T.A. NO.533/BANG/2009 - A. Y. 2005-06 : 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS URGED AS MANY AS EIGHT G ROUNDS, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OP PORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. HE PART ICULARLY BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX(A) AT PAGE 3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 'THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT HE COULD NOT COMPLY WIT H THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT AND WITH THE LE TTER DT.04.12.2007, AS HE IS NOT A REGULAR ASSESSEE AND IS NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, N EEDED THE HELP OF A PROFESSIONAL TO PREPARE THE TRUE AND CORR ECT RETURN OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT RESIDES IN SMALL PLACE AN D HAD TO GO TO MALUR, THE NEARBY TALUK HEADQUARTERS IN SEARC H OF ASSISTANCE TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE SERVED ON HIM. THE CONSULTANT HAD ASKED FOR CERTAI N PARTICULARS FOR PREPARATION OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE APPELLANT HAD TO GA THER NECESSARY INFORMATION, WHICH RELATED TO PERIOD MORE THAN TWO YEARS. THE APPELLANT COULD FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 27.12.2007 AFTER OBT AINING RELEVANT POSSIBLE INFORMATION. THE APPELLANT FURTH ER SUBMITS THAT HE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE, AS THE TIME PROVIDED FOR SUBMIS SION OF RETURN OF INCOME IN THE NOTICE WAS LESS THAN 15 DAY S. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSU ED U/S.142(1) WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND FOR BONAFIDE REASO NS.' ITA.533 TO 535/B/09 PAGE - 3 THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED, IN THIS C ASE THE NOTICE U/S.142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 16.11.2007 AND THE PROPOSE D ASSESSMENT WAS COMMUNICATED BY LETTER DT.7.12.2007. THE ASSES SMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.144 BY MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION O F RS.10 LAKHS. ON 17.12.2007, HARDLY GIVING THE ABOUT A MONTH'S TI ME TO THE ASSSESSEE. IN THE PREMISES OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING INEX PERIENCED IN IT PROCEEDINGS WAS TO APPROACH A TAX CONSULTANT AND TH IS LED TO ASSESSEE'S INABILITY TO PROPERLY REPRESENT BEFORE T HE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE THE MATTER, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, SHOULD GO BACK. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. AS SUCH THE ORDER U/S.144 WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER HAS TO GO BAC K TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. ITA.533 TO 535/B/09 PAGE - 4 I.T.A. NO.534/BANG/2009 - A. Y. 2005-06 : 5. IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE U/S.142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 16.11.2007 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED. AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE, ASSESSMENT U/S.144 WAS COMPLETED ON 17.12.2007. AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT PROVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE CASE. 6. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVI DED WITH LESS THAN TIME OF LESS THAN ONE MONTH TO MAKE REPRESENTA TION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. I.T.A. NO.535/BANG/2009 - A. Y. 2005-06 : 7. COMING TO THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE FIRST NOTICE W AS ISSUED ON 13.11.2007 ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 23 .11.2007. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/SS.143(2) AND 142(1) WERE I SSUED ON 28.11.2007. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPOND TO T HESE NOTICES, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 18.12.2007 PROVIDING TH E ASSESSEE A PERIOD OF AROUND 20 DAYS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY, WHICH IS VI OLATIVE OF THE ITA.533 TO 535/B/09 PAGE - 5 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMAND THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS BY THREE ASSESSEE S RESPECTIVELY ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (N. L. KALRA) (K. P. T. THANGAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE DATED : 16TH OCTOBER, 2009 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, NEW DELHI 7. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE