Shri A.Anburavi, CHENNAI v. ITO, Erode

ITA 2131/CHNY/2008 | 1995-1996
Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 213121714 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN TOITA2129T
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 2131/CHNY/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Shri A.Anburavi, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, Erode
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 10-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 10-01-2011
Assessment Year 1995-1996
Appeal Filed On 18-11-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH B : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NOS. 2129 TO 2131/MDS/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1993-94 1994-95 & 1995-96 SHRI A. ANBARUVI NO.16 CHINNIAH PILLAI STREET T. NAGAR CHENNAI 600 017 VS THE ITO WARD (1) ERODE [PAN/GIR NO. A-5910 ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 ARE PREFERRED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE DATED 03.10.2008. IN ALL THESE APPEALS EXACTLY IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED THEREFORE F OR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE THEY ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THESE APPEALS ARE THAT CONSEQUENT UPON A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERA TION CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS 'THE ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 2 -: ACT' FOR SHORT) BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.3.1995 IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY HAD SOLD SOME IMMOVABLE PROPE RTIES TO ONE SHRI CHELLAPRAKASH. ON THE SAME DAY SHRI CHELLAPRAKASH GROUP OF CASES WERE ALSO SEARCHED. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN T HE FIRM NAMED M/S LEO ASSOCIATES. IT WAS NOTICED THAT SUBSTANTIAL AM OUNTS WERE RECEIVED AS SALE PROCEEDS AND IN ADDITION TO THAT ON-MONEY W AS ALSO RECEIVED WHICH ATTRACTED CAPITAL GAINS. THIS RESULTED INTO INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 25.9.1996 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96. THIS NOTICE W AS SERVED AS PER REVENUE RECORDS ON THE ASSESSEE ON 8.10.1996. THE RE BEING NO RESPONSE FROM ASSESSEES SIDE NOTICES U/S 142(1) O F THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO HIM WHICH RESULTED INTO FILING OF RETURNS OF INCOME ON 16.3.1998 FOR ALL THESE YEARS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED LOSS OF ` 8 150/- ` 27 272/- AND ` 41 690/- RESPECTIVEL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 36 000/- AND ` 15 000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 AND 1995-96 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON 26.3.1999 BY SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DETERMININ G INCOME OF ` 11 08 450/- ` 1 68 870/- AND ` 42 10 500/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 RESPECTIVELY. APPEALS WERE PREF ERRED IN ALL THESE ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 3 -: YEARS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE WHO IN TURN DISPOSED OF THESE APPEALS BY PASSING EX-PARTE ORDERS IN I.T.A.N O. 243/01-02 DATED 10.12.2001 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND A COMBIN ED ORDER IN I.T.A.NOS. 241 & 242/01-02 DATED 10.12.2001 FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 AND 1995-96. THE LD. CIT(A) POSTED THESE C ASES FOR HEARING ON 28.10.1999 AND 20.3.2000 BUT WHEN NOBODY ATTENDE D ON THESE DATES FURTHER DATE WAS AGAIN GIVEN ON 17.4.2001 ON WHICH DATE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI K.SUBRAMANIAM APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH W AS REFUSED. SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE MONTHS OF FEBRUARY JUNE AND D ECEMBER OF 2001 AS PER THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST THE CASES WERE A GAIN POSTED FOR HEARING. THERE BEING NO RESPONSE THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE DECIDED ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PA RTE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AVAILABLE BEFO RE HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE THROUGH LETTER DATED 3.6.2002 FILED PETITIONS SEEKING RECTIFICAT ION U/S 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE BUT BY A COMM ON ORDER DATED 21.6.2001 HE REJECTED ALL THE THREE APPLICATIONS F ILED U/S 154 OF THE ACT . THE REASON FOR REJECTION OF RECTIFICATION A PPLICATIONS WAS GIVEN AS NON-COOPERATION FROM ASSESSEES SIDE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE MATTER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COUR T IN WRIT PETITION NOS.14129 TO 14131 OF 2008 DATED 11.7.2008 AND THE HON'BLE COURT ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 4 -: HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3.6.2002 OF THE LD. C IT(A)-I COIMBATORE WITH A DIRECTION TO THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE T O ISSUE FRESH NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASS ORDERS WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A COPY OF HON'BLE COURTS ORDER AFTER HE ARING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE ON 22.8 .2009. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THESE CASES W ERE AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR FILIN G WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE REQUEST WAS ACCEDED TO BY ADJOU RNING THE CASES TO 22.9.2008 ON WHICH DATE WRIT SUBMISSIONS DATED 20.9.2008 WERE FILED AND THE CASES WERE HEARD. DURING FRESH HEARI NG THE ASSESSEE TOOK FOLLOWING GROUNDS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-I COI MBATORE: (I) THAT THE ORDERS ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS O F THE CASE. (II) THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 7-12- 2001 BOTH AT ERODE AND COIMBATORE. (III) THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 O F THE I.T. ACT 1961 SINCE NO FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. (IV) THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY FILED DETAILS O F LOAN CREDITORS DRAWINGS AND ADDITION IN ALV IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (V) THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT SINCE HE FILED ADJOURNMENT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE POWERS OF RECTIFICATION . ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 5 -: 3. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 21.6.2002 AF TER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS REJECTED THEM AS HE FOUND NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN HIS ORDERS DATED 10.12. 2001. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE DATED 21.6.2002 THE APPEALS WERE AGAIN CONSIDERED AFRESH. A LENGTHY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WA S FILED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH RUNS TO SEVERA L PAGES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME AT PAGES 7 TO 13 OF HIS ORDER THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE HAS DISMISSED ALL THE THREE APPEALS SEE KING RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT WITH THE FORCE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONINGS: 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE APPELLANT FOR A.Y.1993-94 TO 1995-96 (SUPRA) AND FIND THAT THE AP PELLANT IN THE SUBMISSIONS AT S.NO.2 FOR ALL THREE YEARS HAS CHAL LENGED THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ADDITIONS OF RES 60 000 ON ACCO UNT OF DRAWINGS IN THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS A MATTER OF RECO RD THAT THE CIT(APPEALS)-I COIMBATORE IN HIS ORDERS IN ITA NOS .243/01-02 AND ITA NOS.241 & 242/01-02 DATED 10-12-2001 FOR A.Y.19 93-94 TO 1995-96 HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S PLE A AND GRANTED THE APPELLANT RELIEF ON THIS GROUND BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.60 000 ON ACCOUNT OF DRAWINGS MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT DATED 26.3.1999 FOR ALL THESE THREE YEARS. IN THESE BEING THE FACTS OF THE MATTER AS PER RECO RD THE GROUNDS RAISED AT PARA 2 OF THE SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DRAWINGS FOR ALL THE THREE A.YS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 ARE THEREFORE IN FRUCTUOUS AND ARE CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED. 8. THE OTHER SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON VARI OUS POINTS (APART FROM THE ISSUE ADDRESSED IN PARA.7 OF THIS ORDER) I N HIS SUBMISSIONS DATED 20-9-2008 FOR A.YS. 1993 TO 1995-96 REPRODUCE D EARLIER IN PARA.6 OF THIS ORDER (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT MUST BE MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE ME IN APPEALS FOR AYS. 1993-94 TO 1995-96 IN RECTIFICATORY PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 SEEKING RE CTIFICATION OF ALLEGED MISTAKES APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IN THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I COIMBATORE IN HIS ORD ERS ITA NOS.243/01-02 AND ITA NOS. 241 & 242/01-02 DATED 10-12-2001. THIS IS FOLLOWING THE SETTING ASIDE OF HIS ORDERS I N ITA NOS.241 TO ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 6 -: 243/01-02 DATED 21-6-2002 BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT BY ITS ORDERS IN W.P.NOS.14129 TO 14131 OF 2008. IN T HIS ORDER DATED 21-6-2002 THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD REJECTED THE APPELL ANT'S APPLICATION U/S 154 DATED 3-6-2002 FOR THESE THREE ASSESSMENT Y EARS HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN HIS ORDERS DATED 10-12-2001 SUPRA). I FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT FOR ALL THE THREE SAID ASSESSMENT YE ARS (SUPRA) THAT THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS/DETAILS FILED CHALLENG E ON MERITS AND ATTEMPT TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT ALL DATED 26-3-1999 FOR AYS. 1993-94 TO 1995-96; WHICH ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT ARE CLEARLY NOT THE SUBJ ECT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL. I ALSO FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT FOR ALL THE ASST YEARS (SUPRA) THAT HE HAS NOT P OINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE FACT OF TH E RECORD IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-I COIMBATORE IN HIS OR DERS NO.243/01- 02 AND I.T.A.NOS.241 & 242/01-02 DATED 10.12.2001 T HAT HIS PETITIONS FOR ACTION U/S 154 DATED 3-6-2002 SEEK TO RECTIFY AND WHICH I AM REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON IN THESE APPEALS. THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATORY ACTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 154 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IS LIMITED. THE EXPRESSION ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN SECTION 154(1) AS EXPOUNDED IN THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF VOLKART BROS VS ITO (1965) 65 ITR 179; WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT; EXPLAIN THAT A MISTAKE A PPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NO T SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCES S OF REASONING OR EXAMINATION OR ARGUMENTS ON POINTS ON WHICH THER E MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. AN APPARENT MISTAKE/E RROR MUST BE FROM THE RECORD AND NOT AN ERROR DISCOVERED FROM OT HER SOURCES. ANY ERROR DISCOVERED AS A RESULT OF INVESTIGATION O F OTHER RECORDS/SOURCES THAT REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF MATERI ALS OR EVIDENCE NOT ON RECORD WILL NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT ERROR ON THE FACT OF THE RECORD. A MISTAKE FROM THE RECORD MUST BE A GLARIN G OBVIOUS AND SELF EVIDENT MISTAKE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 154 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE CONCERNED AUT HORITIES THEREUNDER IS TO CORRECT MISTAKES APPARENT FROM TH E FACE OF THE RECORD AND NOT A POWER OF REVIEW OF THE ERSTWHILE O RDERS IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATORY ACTION. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I FIND THAT THE APPELLAN T IN HIS SUBMISSIONS (SUPRA) HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MIS TAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I COIMBATORE IN NO.243/01-02 AND I.T.A.NOS.241 & 242/01-02 DATED 10 .12.2001 IN RESPECT OF WHICH THESE RECTIFICATION APPLICATIONS DATED 3-6-2002 AND SUBMISSION DATED 20-9-2008(SUPRA) SEEK RECTIFIC ATORY ACTION. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT(SUPRA) ON THE CONT RARY APPEAR TO CHALLENGE THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT DATED 26-3-1999 FOR THESE THREE YEARS. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED THEREIN BY THE APPELLAN T'S SUBMISSIONS DATED 20-9-2008 IF ACTED UPON WOULD AMOUNT TO REV IEWING THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF MY PREDECESSOR IN ITA NOS.243/0 1-02 AND ITA ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 7 -: NOS.241 & 242/01-02 DATED 10-12-2001 AND THE POINTS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE CERTAINLY OUT OF AND BEYOND THE S COPE OF RECTIFICATORY ACTION AS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. IN THIS BEING THE FACTUAL AND LE GAL MATRIX OF THE CASE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.YS. 1993-94 TO 1995-96 DATED 20-9-2 008 DO NOT ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM T HE RECORD IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I COIMBAIORE IN ITA NO. 243/01-02 AND ITA NOS.241 & 242/01-02 DATED 10-12-2001 THAT WARRA NT RECTIFICATORY ACTION U/S 154 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 A ND THEREFORE REJECT THEM. THE APPELLANT'S PLEAS ACCORDINGLY FAIL. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER AGGRIEVED AND HAS R AISED ALMOST COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE THREE APPEALS. FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT THE GROUNDS HEREIN AS BELOW: 1. THE ORDER OF THE IT(A) COIMBATORE IS CONTRARY TO LAW FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) COIMBATORE IS VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OPPOSED TO DOCTRINE OF FAIR PROCEDURE (SEE 176 ITR 169 SC) . 3. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) COIMBATORE IS ALSO OPPOS ED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIR PROCEDURE SINCE THE TRANSFER OF FILE FROM CHENNAI TO COIMBATORE IS PERSE IS ILLEGAL AND NON- CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER OF FILE TO CHENNAI IS ALS O BAD IN LAW. 4. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NULLITY IN LAW SINCE HE NEITHER SERVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING NOR CONSIDERED THE MER ITS OF THE CASE WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF TAXATIO N NO TAX WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS TIME HONOURED SLOGAN(SEE 163 ITR 680 MAD). 5. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NULLITY IN L AW SINCE HE LACKS JURISDICTION WHEN THE APPEAL FILES WERE TRANS FERRED TO CHENNAI AND THE RETRANSFER TO COIMBATORE IS BAD IN LAW 6. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT IS ALSO AGAINST THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE WRIT PETITION FIL ED BY THE APPELLANT. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERI NG THE ISSUES ON MERITS AND FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 IS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE I T WOULD AMOUNT REVIEW BUT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORD ER COULD BE RECALLED WHEN THERE IS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY . ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 8 -: 8. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT HE ORDER COULD BE RECALLED IN A PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 154 WHEN THERE IS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN NOT G RANTING OPPORTUNITY WHICH IS UNDISPUTED. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUN DS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR AT THE OUTSET OF THE OPENING OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE LD . CIT(A)-I COIMBTORE HAS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE WHICH ARE OPPOSED TO DOCTRINE OF FAIR PROCEDURE. SINCE THE T RANSFER OF FILES FROM CHENNAI TO COIMBATORE PER SE IS ILLEGAL AND NON-CON SIDERATION OF TRANSFER OF FILES TO CHENNAI IS ALSO BAD IN LAW. T HE ORDER WAS CHRISTENED AS NULLITY IN LAW IN THE LIGHT OF THE FA CT THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS NEITHER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT( A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND ALSO ON THE GROUND OF LA CKING JURISDICTION AS WELL AS AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE MADRA S HIGH COURT AS STATED ABOVE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL ONLY MEET IN CASE THESE APPEALS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF HE ASSESSING OFFICER AT CHENNAI. THE LD.AR ALSO UNDERTOOK NOT TO RAISE ANY OBJECTION REGARDING JURISDICTION OF THE C ASE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.DR HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR AND RELIED ON THE APPELLATE ORDER TO SUPP ORT THE IMPUGNED FINDINGS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND AFTER GOING DEEP ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 9 -: INTO THE FACTS OF THESE CASES WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ONLY IF THE ISSUE IS RES TORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHENNAI. ALTHOUGH THE LD.DR HAS OBJECTED TO THIS PROPOSITION OF THE LD.AR YET WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THIS OBJECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL BEING THE FINAL FACT FINDING BODY AND IMPERATIVE DUTY IS CAST UPON IT. SINCE FULL AND FINAL FACTS ARE NOT COMING ON RECORD NOR THESE CAN BE CUL LED OUT THEREFROM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ALL THE THREE APPEALS N EED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHENNAI. THE LD .AR HAS STATED THAT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WHETHER COIMBATORE OR CHE NNAI IS NOT RELEVANT NOW AND HE UNDERTOOK NOT TO PRESS THIS ISSUE ANY MO RE IN THIS ROUND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHENNAI. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT ALL THE APPEALS NEED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER (ITO CHENNAI) WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFR ESH AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR DOING THAT WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I COIMBATORE AND REST ORE THE APPEALS WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTION. ITA 2129 TO 2131/08 :- 10 - : 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.0 1.2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH JANUARY 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR