Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7476 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
16-03-2011
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
15-07-2009
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 847/PN/09 (ASSTT. YEARS: 2002-03) ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, .. APPE LLANT (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-I, PUNE VS. TATA HONEYWELL LTD., .. RESPONDEN T 55-A/8 & 9, HADAPSAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PUNE PAN AAACT 3904F APPELLANT BY: SHRI ABHAY DAMLE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.D. ONKAR ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)I, PUNE DATED 22.4.2009 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE FIRST AND FOR EMOST CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.8.2007 IN ITA NO 943/PN/03 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 3. IN BRIEF, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN PASSED IN TERMS OF TH E DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTAINED IN ITS ORDER DATED 31.8.2007 (SU PRA) WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) IN PARAGRAPH (1) OF HIS ORDER. IN TERMS OF THE SAID DIRECTIONS, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS DIRECTED TO DE NOVO EXAMINE THE MATTE R AFTER PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CLAIM OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE IS THAT A LETTER ITA NO 847/PN/09 TATA HONEYWELL LTD. PUNE 2 DATED 31.3.2009 WAS RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE HEARING WAS SCHEDULED ON 8.4.2009, WHICH WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 15.4.2009, AS INTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF FACT ACCOMPANYING THE APPEAL TO POINT OUT THAT AN INTERIM REPORT WAS SENT BY THE ASSISTANT DI RECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-I, PUNE TO THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, PUNE ON 11.5.2009, A COPY OF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AS EXHIBIT E. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) PASSED HIS ORDER DATED 22.4.20 09 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 11.5.2009 AND THEREBY NOT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF BEIN G HEARD AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.8.2007 (SUPRA). IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS E RRED IN NOT DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS THAT THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WITH DIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER TH E REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER. THE LEARNED C OUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER SERIOUSLY CONTESTED THE FACTUAL MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, AND NOR THE PRAYER FOR SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THIS BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND RESTORE TH E APPEAL BACK TO HIS FILE TO BE ADJUDICATED ON THE LINES AS DIRECTED BY THE T RIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31.8.2007 (SUPRA) AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) SHALL PASS AN ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL STANDS IN ITA NO 847/PN/09 TATA HONEYWELL LTD. PUNE 3 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THIS VIEW, WE ARE NOT ADJUD ICATING ON THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE, FOR THE PRESENT. WE MAY ALSO STATE THAT OU R DECISION TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) IS NO REFLECTION ON THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE AND THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) SHALL ADJUDICATE ON THE MERITS IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 11.03.2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE: DATED: 16 TH MARCH, 2011 B COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. TATA HONEYWELL LTD., PUNE 2. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF IT (ITI), PUNE 3. THE CIT(A)-I PUNE 4. THE DIT, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A BENCH, PUNE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE
Mehul