Inayath Ulla Khan, Ramanagar V. ITO, Mandya

ITA 944/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8578 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO.944 (BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 09) SHRI INAYAT ULLA KHAN, C/O S. GANESH RAO, ADVOCATE, 399, 65 TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010 PAN. AAWPI5264J APPELLANT VS THE ITO, WARD 3, MANDYA RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GANESH RAO, ADVOCATE, REVENUE BY : SHRI AR. V. SREENIVAS, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 15-02-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 -02-2017 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 3, BENGALURU DATED 08.03.2016 FOR A. Y . 2008 09. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEAR NED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SEVERAL G ROUNDS BUT IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO CIT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER PROV IDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WILL B E SATISFIED BECAUSE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) IS WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQ UATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR OF THE REVE NUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO CIT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BO TH SIDES BECAUSE I FEEL THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT PROVIDIN G ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. I FEEL SO BECAUSE I FIND THAT IN ITA NO.944(BANG)2016 2 THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE DATE OF HEARING NOTED IS ON LY ONE I.E. 22.02.2016 AND IN THE PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOTE D THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. TH EN IN PARA 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AR OF THE ASSE SSEE VIDE HIS SUBMISSION DATED 26.11.2015, CLAIMED SOMETHING AND THOSE SUBMI SSIONS ARE REPRODUCED AND CONSIDERED BUT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 22.02.2016. THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PR OVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I AM NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERIT OF THE MATT ER IN DISPUTE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : .02.2017 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.944(BANG)2016 3 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT 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 OF DISPATCH OF ORDER