Sri Rajib Chowdhury , Bangalore V. Income TAx Officer Range-6(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 803/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5901 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABDUL HAKEEM M
• Assessee Lawyers: B SRINIVASA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 803 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 - 13 SHRI RAJIB CHOWDHURY, PROP. M/S. BRIGHT PETROLEUM, NO. 340, 10 TH B MAIN, 1 ST CROSS, 4 TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 079. PAN: ABLPC6333L VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 6 (2) (3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. SRINIVASA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABDUL HAKEEM .M, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 23 . 0 4 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 . 0 5 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THISAPPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-14, BANGALORE DATED 09.01.2018 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED INCOM E TAX OFFICER IS NOT RIGHT IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAID ON LOAN. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER APPEAL'S SHOULD HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT PROVI DED AN OPPORTUNITY. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER APPEAL'S HAS NOT V ERIFIED THAT BANK STATEMENT DISBURSEMENT OF LOAN AMOUNT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER APPEAL'S HAS ERRED BOTH ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW. ITA NO.803/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL SHOULD H AVE EXAMINED THE UTILIZATION OF LOAN AMOUNT AFTER LOAN DISBURSEMENT BY THE BANK. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE APPEAL IGNORES THE FACT S OF THE CASE AND UTILIZATION OF FUNDS. 6. THE APPELLANT HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE, OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED BY CIT(A) FOR HEARING ON 05.01.2018 BUT ON TH IS DATE, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BECAUSE OF SOME PERSONAL DIFFICULTIES AND THEREAFTER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY CIT(A) ON 09.01.2018 WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BAC K TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). H E ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 2 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE HEA RING WAS FIRST FIXED ON 06.10.2017 AND ON THIS DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED. THE CIT(A) HAS DECID ED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT( A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT THIS IS TRUE THAT ON 06.10.2017, WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED BY ASSESSE E BEFORE CIT(A) BUT ON THIS DATE ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) AND ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATE I.E. 05.01.2018 ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE, I FEEL IT FIT AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RE STORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 5. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION IS CAL LED FOR REGARDING THE MERIT OF THE CASE AT THE PRESENT STAGE. ITA NO.803/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 04 TH MAY, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.