K.Leelavathi, Erode v. ITO, Erode

ITA 1052/CHNY/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 105221714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ACKPL6392A
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1052/CHNY/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant K.Leelavathi, Erode
Respondent ITO, Erode
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Date Of Final Hearing 28-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 28-09-2016
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 19-04-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C B ENCH CHENNAI . ! ' . # % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1065 & 1052/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 & 2011-12) MRS. K.LEELAVATHI B-93 SAMPATH NAGAR ERODE. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I(4) ERODE. PAN: ACKPL6392A ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY AM:- THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 COIMBATORE DATED 27.01.2016 IN ITA NOS.233/13-14 & 134/14-15(A)-1 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HER APPEALS HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE COMMON ISSUE IS A S FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND THE APPEALS WERE NOT DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS 2 ITA NOS.1065 & 1052/MDS/2016 3. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE HE REQUESTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESE NT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENT LY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE BUT COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY CONFRONT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L EARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE CASE OF BOTH THESE APPEALS FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AS IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY REM IT BACK THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 3 ITA NOS.1065 & 1052/MDS/2016 TAX (APPEALS) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER OBTAINI NG REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD.A.O IN CASE IF IT IS FOUND NECES SARY. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . # ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI ( /DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 SOMU *+ + /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF