M/s.Venus Eye Vision Ltd., Nashik V. ACIT, Nashik

ITSSA 8/PUN/1997

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8469 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-1997
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARESHWAR SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO IT(SS) APPEAL NO. 8/PN/97 (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1985 TO 11-01-1996) M/S. VENUS EYE VISION LTD. VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHAMBERS, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK .... APPELLANT VS. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), (INV) NASHIK . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARESHWAR SHARMA ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER OF ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) (INV.), NASHIK DATED 27/01/1997 FOR THE BLOCK ASSES SMENT PERIOD 01/04/85 TO 11/01/1996. 2. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS IS THE RECALLED MATER AND THE SAME WAS RECALLED FOR NON ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL. IN THIS REGARD, AT TH E VERY OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 53 PAGES AND STATED THAT THE GROUND NO. 6 HAS TO BE REFERRED TO THE FILES OF THE A.O FOR EXAMINI NG THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENCES NOTED BY THE A.O. TH E RETURN BACK ENTRIES WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCES NOT ED ARE RECONCILABLE AND EXPLICABLE. LD. COUNSEL HUMBLY REQUESTED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS REGARD . PER CONTRA , LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTY VEHEMENTLY. IT(SS) APPEAL NO. 8/PN/97 BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1985 TO 11-01-1996 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE RECALLED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. LIMITED IS SUE WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED BY US IS WHETHER ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THERE IS EXPLAINABLE DISCREPANCY IN THE ORDER OF THE A. O, WHO HAD TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE FIRST ROUND FOR WANT OF DOCUMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES. CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE OF JUSTICE TO THE EITHER OF THE PARTIE S, LIKELY DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE AO BECAUSE OF FRESH FACTS AND EXPLANATION, IF GI VEN THE OPPORTUNITY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR GRANT ANOTHE R OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ADVANCING HIS CASE. CONSIDERING THE PAPERS FILED B EFORE US, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE MATER SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FILES OF THE A.O FOR REEXAMINING THE ISSUE AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, A.O SHALL GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 6 IS SET ASIDE. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE DAY 09 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2011 R COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1) (INV) NASHIK 3. CIT, NASHIK 4. D.R. ITAT A BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE