Om Motors, Tiruvannamalai V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 8(5), CHENNAI

ITA 788/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0268 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.788/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2015-16 M/S. OM MOTORS, C/O A. SUNDARAMURTHY, NO. 1, KANCHI ROAD, TIRUVANNAMALAI 606 601. [PAN:AACFO4545L] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BASHYAM, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.06.2019 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 9, CHENNAI DATED 31.01.2019 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 31.10.2015 ADMITTING A LOSS OF I.T.A. NO.788/CHNY/19 2 .5,78,828/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT IN SHORT]. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR DETAILS AND ALSO A LETTER WAS ISSUED CALLED FOR THE DETAILS REQUIRED VIDE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES AND LETTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED ANOTHER LETTER DATED 08.09.2017 POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 22.09.2017. THE SAID LETTER RETURNED UNSERVED. THEREAFTER, THE SAID LETTER WAS SENT THROUGH E-MAIL TO THE ASSESSEES E-MAIL ID. IN RESPONSE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO POSTPONE THE HEARING AFTER 31.10.2017 SINCE HE WAS HELD UP WITH TAX AUDIT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED UPTO 10.10.2017. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE, ANOTHER LETTER DATED 12.10.2017 WAS ISSUED POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 23.10.2017. BY GIVING EXPLANATION, THE AR WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS/DOCUMENTS. AFTER A GREAT STRUGGLE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS OF VARIOUS BANKS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE COPIES OF BANK ON RECORD. HOWEVER, THE AR DID NOT FURNISH ANY OTHER DETAILS PERTAINING TO VARIOUS CLAIMS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE PROPOSING FOR MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE AR FURNISHED THE DETAILS. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE I.T.A. NO.788/CHNY/19 3 ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .89,80,250/- AFTER MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 250(1) OF THE ACT, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES ON MERITS AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. AGAINST VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FIRM HAD CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINESS AND NOT FUNCTIONING AT CHENNAI AND THE NOTICES SENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK WITHOUT PROPER SERVICE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO REPRESENT THE APPEAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 18.01.2019. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AUDITOR FROM TIRUVANNAMALAI WAS ASKED TO APPEAR BUT DUE TO HIS PERSONAL ILLNESS, HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING IN SEPTEMBER, 2018. SINCE THE NON-APPEARANCE ON THE HEARING DATE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON, BUT, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR AFFORDING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ON PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 250(1) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED ON THE I.T.A. NO.788/CHNY/19 4 ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEES FIRM WAS CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINESS AND NOT FUNCTIONING AT CHENNAI. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO GIVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE AND DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 28 TH JUNE, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (S. JAYARAMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 28.06.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.