S.Manikanda Sakthivel, Erode v. ACIT, Erode

ITA 1477/CHNY/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 147721714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAMPM8148A
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1477/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant S.Manikanda Sakthivel, Erode
Respondent ACIT, Erode
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 01-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 01-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 01-11-2011
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 30-08-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1477/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI S. MANIKANDA SAKTHIVEL 33 PAVALAM STREET MUNICIPAL COLONY ERODE-638 004. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-II ERODE. (PAN: AAMPM8148A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN JR. STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 01-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-11-2011 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)-I COIMBATORE IN APPEAL NO. 156/10-11 DATED 19-07-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN JR. STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS THE I.T.A. NO.1477/MDS/2011 2 SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30-03-2009 DECLARING AN INCOME O F ` 9 75 354/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 CAME TO BE ISSUED ON 12-09-2009 TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD REPRESENTED . SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28-12-2010 POS TING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 30-12-2010. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME AS ALSO DUE TO CERTAIN PERSONAL INCONVENIENCES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER CAME TO BE PASSED ON 31-12-2010 WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BROUGHT TO TAX THE PEAK CREDIT AS STANDING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS CLA IMED IN THE STATUS OF HUF ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO LINK THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE HUF STATUS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) PRODUCED DETAILS WHICH WERE NOT ADMITTED. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PLA CE ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ONLY DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS. 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28- 12-2010 POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 30-12-2010 THEREBY GIVING THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO.1477/MDS/2011 3 ONLY TWO DAYS NOTICE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31-12-2010. IT IS VERY MUCH UNDERSTANDABLE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO HARD-PRESSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE TIME BARRING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY HE WAS BOUND TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31-12- 2010. HOWEVER AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT DUE TO PAU CITY OF TIME THAT HAS LED TO THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION A FTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS ON THE ISSUE AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01/11/2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 01 ST NOVEMBER 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE