City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam V. DCIT, Kumbakonam

ITA 912/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4984 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G SEETHARAMAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, J. M. & SHRI N.S. SAINI, A . M. I.T.A. NOS. 377, 911, 912, & 913/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02, 02-03, 03-04 & 04-05 CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, CENTRAL OFFICE, 149, TSR BIG STREET, KUMBAKONAM 612 001. [PAN:AAACC1287E] VS. THE ASSISTANT/DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, KUMBAKONAM. I.T.A. NOS. 422, 936, 769 AND 938/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02, 02-03, 03-04 & 04-05 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, KRISHNASWAMY ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM VS. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, CENTRAL OFFICE, 149, TSR BIG STREET, KUMBAKONAM 612 001. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G. SEETHARAMAN REVENUE BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN ORDER PER BENCH THESE CROSS APPEALS FOUR BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOU R BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 02-03, 03-04 AND 04-0 5 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND INVOLVE C OMMON ISSUE, THEREFORE, BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA ITA ITA ITA NO. NO. NO. NO. 377 377377 377/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & OTHERS & OTHERS & OTHERS & OTHERS 2 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF TWO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 02-03 PLEADING THEREIN THAT DUE TO INADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE AND NOT BEING PROPERLY ADVISED BY THE COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RAISE THE GROUNDS WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH WAS DULY RAISED AND NOT ADJUDICAT ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND SINCE THIS GROUND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE JURISDICT ION TO REASSESS THE CASE AND THIS BEING A LEGAL GROUND, IT WAS PLEADED FOR ADMIS SION OF SUCH GROUNDS AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. THE LD. DR DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT IN CASE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ADMITTED. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THE POINT OF AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LEGAL GROUND FOR ADMISSION AS ADDITIONAL GROUND AS THE SAME REMAINED OMITTED TO B E INCORPORATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND GIVEN ADEQUATE REASONING FOR SUCH OMISSION. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE BONAFIDELY OMITTED TO INCLUDE SUCH GROUNDS, WHICH IS LEGAL GROUND, SO, WE ADMIT THESE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS FOR BOTH THE YEARS FOR ADJUDICATION. 6. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND CHALLENGING REOPENING WAS DULY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 02-03, ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAS BEEN RAIS ED AND FOR OTHER TWO YEARS, ITA ITA ITA ITA NO. NO. NO. NO. 377 377377 377/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & OTHERS & OTHERS & OTHERS & OTHERS 3 SUCH GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVING BEEN RAISED IN THE ME MORANDUM OF APPEALS, BUT IF ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS ARE LOOKED INTO, IT WOULD TRANSPIRE THAT SUCH GROUND FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS, THOUGH RAI SED HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN DISCUSSED OR ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ANY OF HE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HIS GROUND SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET AS IDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE- DECIDE THE APPEALS AFRESH AND TO THIS PLEA OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT AND RATHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THIS GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AND MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR REDECIDING THE APPEALS. 7. WE, AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSI DERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, FIND THAT IN THE APPEALS FOR ALL THE FOUR Y EARS, THE ASSESSEE RAISED SPECIFIC GROUND CHALLENGING REOPENING BEFORE THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT IN NONE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), SUCH G ROUNDS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED OR ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, H IS ORDERS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. AS SUCH, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO HAVE FAI R PLAY IN THE MATTER, WE FIND IT JUST AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS AND RESTORE BACK THE MATTERS TO THE LD. CIT (A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE- DECIDE THE APPEALS AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACC ORDINGLY. ITA ITA ITA ITA NO. NO. NO. NO. 377 377377 377/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/1 11 10 00 0 & OTHERS & OTHERS & OTHERS & OTHERS 4 8. SINCE, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE L D. CIT(A), THEREFORE, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE WOULD BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARI NG ON 06.06.2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VM/- DATED : 06.06.2011. COPY TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.