P.Ramesh Babu, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 601/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90368 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . !' , # $% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 601/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI P. RAMESH BABU, NO.36, SRINIVASA IYER STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN AAFPB2872E. APPELLANT) V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(4), CHENNAI . RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 26.05.2015 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.05.2015 & / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DATED 2. 1.2015. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: - - ITA 601/1 5 2 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL IN HASTE WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL AS THE APPELLANT APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOT ONLY IN THIS CASE BUT IN MANY OTHER CASES OF THIS GROUP. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL IN A SUMMARY MANNER WITHOUT ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE OBJECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), NONE APPEARED, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HI S CASE. HENCE, THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX PARTE, BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). 4. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT ONE MORE OP PORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE HIS CASE IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT EFF ECTIVE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH W AS NOT AVAILED BY HIM. HENCE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND NO FRESH OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. - - ITA 601/1 5 3 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND THAT IN THIS C ASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE EX PARTE WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MA Y BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE E NTIRE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE DEPARTM ENT AND PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 26 TH OF MAY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . $ % ) ( & ' ( ) ) *+,-./01023 45067.082290.:3 ; $< /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! $<=>>2-6?06?@ABCA. &; /CHENNAI, D$ /DATED, THE 26 TH MAY, 2015. MPO* - - ITA 601/1 5 4 $E FGHG /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. I3 /CIT(A) 4. I /CIT 5. GJ% K /DR 6. %LM /GF.