M.Balasubramaniam, CHENNAI V. ITO, Pondicherry

ITA 652/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6457 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC B BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.652/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHRI M. BALASUBRAMANIAM, NO.213, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, MUTHIALPET, PONDICHERRY 605 003. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (1), PONDICHERRY. PAN: AHRPB9543M ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYOPAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2017 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.08.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)- PUDUCHERRY DATED 23.12.2016 IN ITA NO.557 /CIT(A)-P DY/2013- 14 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED U/S.250(6 ) R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.652/MDS/2017 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINI FOR WANT OF PROSECU TION. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ELECTRONICALLY ON 06.07.2010, ADMITTING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.9,59,280/-. INITIALLY THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SC RUTINY AND FINALLY ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 2 2.02.2013, WHEREIN THE LD.AO MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP F OR HEARING NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE LD.CIT( A) NOR HE FILED AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION. THEREFORE THE LD.CI T(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AS ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEES COMPLETE ABSENCE OF EARNESTNESS IN FOLLOWING UP THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FILED ANY CONDONATION PET ITION FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE HEARING NOTICES ISSUED. THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CAUSE, LEAVE ALONG SUFFICIENT CAU SE, FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN TIME IN TERMS OF SECTI ON 249(3), IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING WERE GIVE N TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO.652/MDS/2017 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL AND ENTRUSTED THE MAT TER TO HIS COUNSEL, HOWEVER THE COUNSEL FAILED TO APPEAR BEFOR E THE LD.CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND HE ALSO DID NO T INTIMATE THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR FURTHER PLEADED STATING THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ABSENCE OF HIS COUNSEL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND THEREFORE HE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED STATING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO-OPERATED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE THE MATTER MAY NOT BE REMITTE D BACK. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THOUGH THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPRECIABLE, HOWEVER IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE, I REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION THEREBY PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE WITH O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. I ALSO CAUTION THE ASS ESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO-OPERATE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS FAILING WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERITS . 4 ITA NO.652/MDS/2017 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 09 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ /CHENNAI, %& /DATED 09 TH AUGUST, 2017 JR & () *) /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. - ( )/CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. )./ 0 /DR 6. /1 /GF