Prakash Impex, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 568/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4517 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS P N KAMALA DEVI
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) .. I.T.A. NOS. 568 & 569/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 & 2004-05- M/S. PRAKASH IMPEX, NO. 58(E) NP, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL AREA, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI-60 098. PAN : AAAFP5388G (APPELLANT) V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE-XI, CHENNAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR RESPONDENT BY : MRS. P.N. KAMALA DEVI ` O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO. 568/MDS/2010 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IV, CHENNAI IN APPEAL N O. CIT(A)-IV/CHE/684/06-07 DATED 26-02-2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ITA NO. 569/MDS/2010 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IV, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-IV/CHE/715/06-07 DATED 26-02-2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. SHRI T. BANUSEKHAR, CA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MRS. P.N. KAMALA DEVI, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF T HE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE HAD REPRESENTED THE APPEALS FI LED BEFORE THE LEARNED ITA NOS. 568 & 569/MDS/10 2 CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RECORDED T HAT NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISS ION THAT THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS COUNSEL HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ON 29.6.2007 AND IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS M AY BE CONSIDERED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION TH AT THE LEARNED CIT(A) SINCE DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS BY ASSUMING THAT NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE CIT(A) TO RE- ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT ITS APPEALS AS ALSO AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUES WERE ALSO C OVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS V. ITO (2009) 318 ITR (AT) 87(MUM)(SB). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS, SUPRA, HAD ALS O BEEN REVERSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD N O OBJECTION IF THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(APPEALS). IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL BY H OLDING THAT NONE REPRESENTED ITA NOS. 568 & 569/MDS/10 3 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH THE DETAILED CALCULATIONS OF 80HHC. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THESE APPEALS MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AS ALSO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09-07- 2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 9 TH JULY, 2010. H. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE