Pavitra Printers, Warangal Dist. v. ITO, Warangal

CO 2/HYD/2008 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 222523 RSA 2008
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number CO 2/HYD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Pavitra Printers, Warangal Dist.
Respondent ITO, Warangal
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 13-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 13-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 12-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-01-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 11-02-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JM AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI AM I.T.A. NO. 681/HYD/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 3 WARANGAL VS. M/S. PAVITRA PRINTERS KAZIPER WARANGAL DIST. PAN/GIR NO.: P-339 APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 2/HYD/2008 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 681/HYD/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) M/S. PAVITRA PRINTERS KAZIPER WARANGAL DIST. PAN/GIR NO.: P-339 VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 3 WARANGAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY: SHRI AMLAN TRIPATHY O R D E R PER NRS GANESAN JM: THE REVENUE FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI HYDERABAD DATED 22.3.2006 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CROSS OBJEC TION (CO) AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A). TH EREFORE WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEAL AND THE CO TOGETHER AND AR E DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS SUBMITTED BY BOTH T HE LEARNED DR AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSE SSING I.T.A. NO. 681/HYD/2006 & C.O. NO. 2/HYD/2008 M/S. PAVITRA PRINTERS KAZIPET ====================== 2 OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED THE REMAND REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE CIT(A) THE CIT(A) OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE REMAND REPORT WHILE DISPOSING OF TH E APPEAL. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT F ILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. HOWEVER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) IT IS BETTER TO REMIT THE SAME B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO APPRECIATE THE MAT ERIALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE MATTER MAY B E REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. BOTH THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESS ING I.T.A. NO. 681/HYD/2006 & C.O. NO. 2/HYD/2008 M/S. PAVITRA PRINTERS KAZIPET ====================== 3 OFFICER. THEREFORE THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMANDE D BACK. HOWEVER ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR THE MATTER HAS TO BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). ON THE CONTRA RY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO APPRECIATE THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ADM ITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BEFORE T HE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. HOWEVER FO R THE REASONS KNOWN TO HIM HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REM AND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF DISPO SAL OF THE APPEAL. THEREFORE THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMANDED BACK. AS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE IN OUR OPINION SINCE THE ADDITIONAL MATE RIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO EXAMINE TH E MATERIALS FILED AND RECORD A FINDING. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE BENEFICIAL IN APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONCE AGAIN. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REC ONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS THAT ARE FI LED BY THE I.T.A. NO. 681/HYD/2006 & C.O. NO. 2/HYD/2008 M/S. PAVITRA PRINTERS KAZIPET ====================== 4 ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE TH E ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 13TH JANUARY 2011 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 3 WARANGAL` 2. M/S. PAVITRA PRINTERS 1-1-1101 SIDDARTHA NAGAR KAZIPET WARANGAL DIST. 3. THE CIT(A)-VI HYDERABAD. 4 THE CIT-VI HYDERABAD 5. THE DR B BENCH ITAT HYDERABAD