Sri. Bhikaram, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 892/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51377 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SREELEKHA
• Section: 68; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.892(BANG.)/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) SHRI BHIKARAM, PROP: M/S KRISHNA BANKERS, MAIN ROAD, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE PAN NO.ACJPB1748D/B-166 APPELLANT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. SREELEKHA, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 13-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :13-12-201 1 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM; THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN PASSING AN EX-PAR TE ORDER AND UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 2. AS SEEN FROM THE CIT(A)S ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING AND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN SEEKING TIME AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO VARIOUS OTHER DATES. FROM 04-12-2008 TO 27-01-2010, THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT APPEARED. TAKING DUE NOTICE OF THESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) HAS PROCEED ED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON MERITS AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.892(B)2010 S 2 2.1. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE C IT(A) FROM 2005 TO 2008 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME. IT IS ONLY THEREAFTER, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ARE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT A ND THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FEEL THAT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOU LD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE SET SIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RE-CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A FRESH OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHOUT TAKING ANY FURTHER ADJOURNMENT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 13 TH DEC, 2011 SD/- SD/- ( N.BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (SM T. P. MADHAVI DEVI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE DATED: 13/12/2011 AM* COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF(BLORE) BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE