ITO, NCW - 8 (4), CHENNAI V. SHRI SHANMUGAM SENTHILKUMAR, CHENNAI

MA 37/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1142 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 251

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एसएस िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member M.A. No. 37/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No. 2578/Chny/2019] िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Vs. Shri Shanmugam Senthil Kumar, No. 140, Kundrathur High Road, Porur, Chennai 600 116. [PAN: ALGPS6106E] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 21.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue intends to expunge para 2 to 6 in the order dated 16.01.2020 passed in ITA No. 2578/Chny/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The ld. DR Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT submits that the ITAT erred in not following Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 before making any adverse observation on the functioning of the CIT(A). The ld. DR drew our M.A. No. 37/Chny/20 2 attention to the paragraphs 2 to 6 of Tribunal’s order and argued that the ITAT should have given opportunity to the affected party before making any adverse observations. He submits that the ITAT made very critical and damaging statements about the functioning of the CIT(A) by violating cardinal principles of natural justice. Further, he argued vehemently that the ITAT exceeded its jurisdiction in incorporating adverse remarks in the impugned order in terms of Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. 3. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that there is no violation of Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and the ITAT, by considering the submissions of the ld. AR, therein, passed order, which means accepted the contention of the ld. AR taking into account the submissions of the ld. AR therein and drew our attention to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the impugned order. This Tribunal was well within the jurisdiction to accept any new ground during the course of argument by giving an opportunity to other side, does not constitute violation in terms of Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. He vehemently prayed to dismiss the Miscellaneous Application. 4. Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 16.01.2020, we find that the ITAT, considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR therein, made observations with M.A. No. 37/Chny/20 3 regard to the functioning of the CIT(A). According to the ld. DR, such observations by the ITAT were incorporated without there being no ground raised by the assessee in Form 36. The ld. AR submits that the assessee can raise any ground with the leave of the Tribunal and make submissions, thereby, he argued that the Tribunal accepted the submissions as made by the then ld. AR and taking into account the counter reply by the then ld. DR made such observations. According to the ld. DR, the observations contained in para No. 6 are critical and damaging the authority of the CIT(A), particularly, affecting the officer’s career prospects. 5. On perusal of the Tribunal’s order dated 16.01.2020, we note that the submissions of the ld. AR therein, were recorded in para 2 and the counter submissions of the ld. DR were recorded in para 3. The Tribunal, while considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, given finding on facts of the case and power of the ld. CIT(A) under section 251 of the Act in paragraphs 4 and 5. Vide para 6, the Tribunal discussed the issue of working hours of the Office of the ld. CIT(A). But, we find the said observations made in para 6 about working hours of Office of CIT(A) are not relevant and necessary to the fair adjudication of the issues raised in Form 36. The Tribunal, however, remanded the matter back to the file of M.A. No. 37/Chny/20 4 the ld. CIT(A) for re-examination for deciding the matter in accordance with the law. Since the observations made in para 6 are not relevant and necessary, for fair adjudication concerning the issues in Form 36, we deem it proper to delete para 6 of Tribunal’s order dated 16.01.2020 in ITA No. 2578/Chny/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16 and no prejudice would cause to the rights and interest of the assessee, if we accept the prayer of the Revenue to expunge the paragraph 6 of the Tribunal’s order, thereby. Thus, the order dated 16.01.2020 passed in ITA No. 2578/Chny/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 stands modified which should be read without para 6 hereafter. Miscellaneous Application of Revenue is answered accordingly. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced on 05 th July, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 05.07.2024 Vm/- M.A. No. 37/Chny/20 5 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.