A Sasuntala, Chennai V. ACIT, Corp Cir-3(2), Chennai

ITA 86/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6773 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS JAYANTHI ANGAYARKANNI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , ! . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.86/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. A. SAKUNTALA, (DIR. OF M/S.VENKATESWARA ELECTRICALS P. LTD.), NO.50, OLD NO.45, 1 ST AVENUE, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 083. [PAN: AAVPS 5568 G] VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI. ( ) /APPELLANT) ( *+) /RESPONDENT) ) , / APPELLANT BY : MR.SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADV. *+) , /RESPONDENT BY : MRS.JAYANTHI ANGAYARKANNI, JCIT , /DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2019 , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.04.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.131(T)/CIT(A)-7/2016-17 DATED 27.11.2018 FOR THE AY 2008-09. ITA NO.86/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: 2. MRS.JAYANTHI ANGAYARKANNI, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND MR. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADV., REPRESENT ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ON 18.04.2013. IT WAS A SUBMI SSION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE EX-PARTE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BE EN POSTED FOR HEARING ON TWO OCCASIONS BEING 16.10.2018 & 01.11.2018 AND ON BOTH THE OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REPRESENTED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE SAID NOTICES. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS O BJECTION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORIC ALLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICES OF HEARING, IN THE INT EREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE OF BEING H EARD. ITA NO.86/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 24 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: 24 TH APRIL, 2019. TLN , *45 65 /COPY TO: 1. ) /APPELLANT 4. 7 /CIT 2. *+) /RESPONDENT 5. 5 * /DR 3. 7 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF