Smt. Chandrakala, Bangalore v. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 601/BANG/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 60121114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAWPC1019P
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 601/BANG/2011
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Chandrakala, Bangalore
Respondent DCIT, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-02-2012
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 24-05-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.601/BANG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. CHANDRAKALA NO.39 MAHARAJA PARADISE BEHIND PARVATHAMMA CHOULTRY CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE 560 018. PAN : AAWPC 1019P VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE JT.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.02.2012 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2010 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-II BANGALORE. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT I S OPPOSED TO LAW ITA NO.601/BANG/2011 PAGE 2 OF 4 WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE NATURAL JUSTICE PROBABILITIES FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AS THE APPELLANT WAS NO T AFFORDED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING TH E EX-PARTE ORDER WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JU STICE. 3. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER. OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS MA DE AND DID NOT OBTAIN THE EXPLANATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.23 24 970/- AS AG AINST RETURNED INCOME BY THE APPELLANT OF RS.16 81 770/- UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT ON FIXTURES FITTINGS FIRE RESISTANCE EQUIPMENTS LIGHTS AND OTHER ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND EQUIPMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE LESSOR A ND THE INVESTMENT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED AND THUS ESTIMATE D A SUM OF RS.6 43 200/- BEING 8 TIMES OF RS.80 400/- UNDER TH E HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS NOT WARRANTED UNDER THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ARBI TRARILY AND BASED ON WRONG ASSUMPTIONS TREATED THE INVESTMENT I N FIXTURES FITTINGS FIRE RESISTANCE EQUIPMENTS LIGHTS AND OT HER ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND EQUIPMENTS AS INVESTMENT MADE BY THE A PPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE MADE AN ALLEGED INVESTMENT OF RS. 6 43 200/- ON THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX MEASURING ABOUT 98 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER SUBST ITUTE AND DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL URGED AB OVE. 9. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE URGED DUR ING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. ITA NO.601/BANG/2011 PAGE 3 OF 4 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND N O.2 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD NOT GIVEN DUE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT G IVEN ANY COGENT REASON WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 4. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2 O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS STATED THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE O N 27.07.10 17.08.2010 AND 20.09.2010 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ABSOLUTEL Y NO COMPLIANCE. THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE CASE EX PARTE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER HOWEVER NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON T HE ASSESSEE. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE EMBODIED IN THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . WE THEREFORE DEEM IT FIT TO REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. ITA NO.601/BANG/2011 PAGE 4 OF 4 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 27 TH FEBRUARY 2012. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.