M/s. Bay Talkitec (P) Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 633/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 63321714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: N VISWANATHAN
• Section: 80IB; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO. 633/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S BAY TALKITEC (P) LTD 42, SARDAR PATEL ROAD GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 032 VS THE ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(2) CHENNAI [PAN - AAACB2386H] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.VISWANATHAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 09-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-08-2011 O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS A RECALLED MATTER. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), DATED 10.20.2010, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO D ISALLOWANCE OF ` 12,85,138/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB OF TH E ACT. ITA 633/10 :- 2 -: 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS CLAMOURED BY THE LD. AR THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSE SSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS APPEAL EMANATES FROM THE ORDER PASSE D U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A VERY GOOD CASE. I T WAS ARGUED THAT THE CASE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE AND A NON-SPEAKING ORDE R WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR CONTE STED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.AR STATING THAT AMPLE OPPORTU NITIES WERE GIVEN WHICH WERE NOT AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGH T OF THE OBTAINING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM U/S 80IB IS REGARDING THE PERIOD BETWEEN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THIS BENEFIT. AFTER I NITIALLY ALLOWING THIS CLAIM THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S 154 ON 20.3.2007 WITHDRAWING THIS DEDUCTION ON THE REASONING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED ITS PRODUCTION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND THE ELIGIBLE YEAR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE WOULD BE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, W E FEEL THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE M UST BE GIVEN BY RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) S O THAT IT CAN BE SETTLED IF THE MISTAKE WHICH HAS BEEN RECTIFIED IS PATENT, MANIFEST AND SELF- EVIDENT WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ELABORATE DISCUSSION OR ARGUMENT TO ITA 633/10 :- 3 -: ESTABLISH IT AND HENCE, IT CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT OR IT IS OTHERWISE. CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, WE RESTORE THE ENTIRE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND REMAND THE CASE AS ABOVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 9-08-2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09 TH AUGUST, 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR