Sri Sunil Kapoor, CHENNAI v. ACIT, CHENNAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 1130/MDS/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96 SHRI SUNIL KAPOOR NO.2 MASILAMANI ROAD CHENNAI-600 014. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-IX CHENNAI. (PAN: AADPK0041L ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. MURALEEDHARA REDDY & MS. K. APARNA DEVI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IX CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 72/06-07 DATED 06-03-2008 AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 2. SHRI M. MURALEEDHARA REDDY AND MS. K. APARNA DEV I ADVOCATES REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI B. S RINIVAS SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO.1130/MDS/2008 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L EARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD PASSED A N EX PARTE ORDER CONFIRMING THE PENALTY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE ASS ESSEES WIFES CASE I.E. SMT. PUSHPA KAPOOR THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUN AL UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 1266/MDS/2008 DATED 06-03-2009 HAD SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUES DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO RECOGNIZED TH AT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT CO-OPERATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THAT NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S WIFES CASE IN ITA NO. 1266/MDS/2008 DATED 06-03-2009 REFERRED TO SUPRA SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE FOR RE-ADJUDICATION TO THE F ILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS ALSO FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ALSO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEA RNED CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION I.T.A. NO.1130/MDS/2008 3 AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD ALSO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) STAN DS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10/2/20 11. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 10 TH FEBRUARY 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE