Shri S K Bagla (HUF) , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bangalore

MA 328/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6061 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMAL ANAND
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 327/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO. 1 131 /BANG/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 1 0 SHRI L.K. BAGLA (HUF), #11, BRIDE STREET, OFF LANGFORD ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AAAHL 1337H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT M.P. NO. 328/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO. 1132/BANG/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 SHRI S.K. BAGLA (HUF), # 84, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AACHS 9827H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIMAL ANAND, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 .01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .0 1 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BOTH THESE MPS ARE FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT BUT CONNE CTED ASSESSEES AND IT IS CONTENDED IN THESE MPS THAT IN PARA NO. 5 OF THE IM PUGNED COMBINED TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO FILE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE COMPENSATION BUT SINCE THE SAID EVIDENCE WAS NOT FU RNISHED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION. M.P. NOS. 327 & 328/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NOS. 1131 & 1132/BANG/2017) PAGE 2 OF 3 2. IT IS SUBMITTED IN THESE MPS THAT AS PER THE DIR ECTION OF THE BENCH, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE BENCH BEFORE THE REGISTRY ON 24.11.2017 AND COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN ENCLOSE D WITH THE MP. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED IN THE MP THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE SAID MEMO DATED 23.11.2017 FILED ON 24.11.2017 WAS NOT BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF THE BENCH BEFORE THE DATE OF ORDER DATED 29.11.2017 AND THERE FORE, IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WAS PRODUCED AND THE SAME WAS AV AILABLE ON RECORD WHEN THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND SINCE, THE SE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE THE SAME COULD N OT REACH THE BENCH, THIS IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE AND IT SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. TH E LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, I REPRODUCE PARA NO. 5 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, WHICH IS AS UNDER. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, IF THESE ASSES SEES HAVE RECEIVED THE COMPENSATION BY ESTABLISHING THEIR TITLE AS HEL D BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAN IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THA T THESE ASSESSEES WERE OWNER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION DURING RELEVANT PERIOD ALSO AND IN THAT SITUATION, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT AGR ICULTURAL INCOME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED BUT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD IS N OT BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SPITE OF DIRECTION OF BENCH AND UNDERTAKING GIVE N BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS, I RESTORE THE M ATTER BACK TO CIT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THIS FACTUAL A SPECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 4. AS PER ABOVE PARA, IT IS SEEN THAT THE MATTER WA S RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) WITH A CLEAR FINDING THAT IF THE ASSESSEES HAVE RECEIVED THE COMPENSATION BY ESTABLISHING THEIR TITLE AS HELD BY HONBLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT THAN IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THESE ASSESSEES WERE OWNER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION DURING RELEVANT PERIOD ALSO AND IN THAT SITUATION, THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING T HE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND M.P. NOS. 327 & 328/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NOS. 1131 & 1132/BANG/2017) PAGE 3 OF 3 AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SAID DOCU MENTS DID NOT REACH TO THE BENCH BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ORDER BUT STILL THE BENCH HAS SIMPLY RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DEC ISION AFTER EXAMINING THE SAID DOCUMENTS. EVEN IF THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE MADE AV AILABLE TO THE BENCH, THE BENCH COULD HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FI LE OF AO / CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER CONSIDERING THOSE DOCUMENTS IN THE L IGHT OF THIS JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DEC ISION AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTUAL ASPECT. UNDER THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MPS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 24 TH JANUARY, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.