P.Krishnaswamy Gounder, Pollachi V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITSSA 230/CHNY/1997

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7820 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-1997
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS) A. NO. 230/MDS/97 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 1.4.1985 TO 28.9.1995) SHRI P. KRISHNASWAMY GOUNDER, PARTNER: M/S LAKSHMI JEWELLERY, 103, BAZAAR STREET, POLLACHI. (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SIC-I, COIMBATORE. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RE NGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 19.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.01.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, GRIEVANCE I S THAT THE ASSESSMENT DONE FOR BLOCK PERIOD WAS VIOLATIVE OF P RINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND HAS TO BE JUSTIFIED ON MERITS. 2. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER OF ONE M/S LAKSHMI JEWE LLERY AND THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE WAS ON PROTECTIVE B ASIS. AS PER LEARNED A.R., THE ADDITIONS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY DONE IN THE HANDS OF I.T.(SS) A. NO. 230/MDS/97 2 M/S LAKSHMI JEWELLERY. LEARNED A.R. POINTED OUT T HAT AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON M/S LAKSHMI JEWELLERY, THERE WAS AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL, BY IT S ORDER DATED 27.12.1999, HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FOR RE-DOI NG IT AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE FORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ALSO, MATTER HAD TO GO BACK TO A.O. FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. 3. AD LIBITUM , LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI JEWELLERY, PURSUANT TO DIRECTION OF THIS TR IBUNAL, A FRESH ASSESSMENT STOOD ALREADY FRAMED FOR THE BLOCK PERIO D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON 26.2.2002. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT DONE IN THE ASSESSEES HAND WAS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, WHEREAS, SUBSTANTIAL ADDIT IONS WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI JEWELLERY. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI JEWELLERY, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD RE MITTED THE ASSESSMENT BACK TO A.O. FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFT ER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. PURSUANT TO SUCH DIRE CTION, ASSESSMENT ON M/S LAKSHMI JEWELLERY HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY T HE A.O. BY HIS ORDER DATED 26.2.2002 AND LEARNED D.R. WAS FAIR ENO UGH TO FILE A I.T.(SS) A. NO. 230/MDS/97 3 COPY OF THE SAME ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE ADDITIONS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALREADY BEE N CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. IN THE CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE ALSO NEEDS A FRESH LOOK BY THE A.O. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSEES C ASE AND REMIT THE ISSUES BACK FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE A.O. AFRESH. HE SHALL CONSIDER THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI JEWE LLERY AND PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAN DS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 19 TH JANUARY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUAR D FILE