K.V. Nagaraj, Hospet V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 892/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0183 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NEERA MALHOTRA
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGINCHAND KHINCHA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NOS.892 TO 898(BANG) 2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2011-12) SHRI K.V.NAGARAJ, OPP: APMC YARD, DAM ROAD, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT -583 201 PAN NO.AHOPK9673Q APPELLANT VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE RESPONDENT AND ITA NOS.899 TO 902(BANG)/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 TO 2011-12) SMT K.N.NANDINI, OPP: APMC YARD, DAM ROAD, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 201 APPELLANT VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAGINCHAND KHINCHA, CA REVENUE BY : MRS. NEERA MALHOTRA CIT DATE OF HEARING : 30-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 7-07-2016 O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSES SEES BEING HUSBAND AND WIFE SRI K.N.,NAGARAJ AND SMT K.N.NANDINI. APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI K.N.NAGARAJ ARE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2 011-12 WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMBINED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A)-11, BANGALORE DATED ITA NO.892 TO 902(BANG)2015 2 27-03-2015 AND THE REMAINING FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY SMT. K.N.NANDINI WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A SEPARATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-11, BANGALORE ALSO DATED 27-03-2015. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE OF SHRI K.N.NAGARAJ, NONE-APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALTHOUGH, IN THE CASE OF SHRI K.N.NANDINI, THE ASSESSEE HERSELF APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BU T NO EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE COULD BE MADE BY HER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT B EFORE THE AO ALSO, IN BOTH THE CASES, PROPER COMPLIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE BECAUSE, SHRI K.N.NAGARAJ, WAS VERY MUCH DISTURBED DUE TO THE SEA RCH AND ALLEGATION REGARDING ILLEGAL MINING AND WAS ALSO PUT BEHIND BA RS AFTERWARDS AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ENTIRE M ATTER IN BOTH THE CASES MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A FRESH DECIS ION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THESE ASSESSEES. 3. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO BOTH THE ASSESSEES BY THE AO AS WE LL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PRO VIDED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ASPECT AND BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THES E TWO CASES IN VARIOUS YEARS, WE EXAMINE THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE MAT TER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A FRESH DECISION OR NOT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A FRESH DECISION IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE ITA NO.892 TO 902(BANG)2015 3 AND THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) IN BOTH THESE CASES IN ALL YEARS AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE TO THE FILE OF RESPECTIVE AO IN BOTH THESE CASES IN ALL THE YEARS INVOLVED IN VARIOUS APPEALS BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) IN ALL THESE CASES AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A O AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES. WE DO NOT WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF VARIOUS ADDITIONS AT THIS STAGE. 5. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE, VARIOUS GROUNDS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ADDITIONS, DO NOT CA LLED FOR ANY ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ( A .K. GARODIA ) JUDICAL MEMBER AC C OUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : 27.07.2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.892 TO 902(BANG)2015 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRA FT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE O F DISPATCH OF ORDER