M/S HERITAGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CC-II(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 938/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 September 2022AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the alleged authorized representative before the CIT(A) was indeed not authorized by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals arose from a common order of the CIT(A). A preliminary objection was raised that the Chartered Accountant who appeared before the CIT(A) was not authorized by the assessee. This was confirmed by both the assessee and the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by allowing an unauthorized representative to argue the assessee's case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 21.09.2022Pronounced: 21.09.2022

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 937 & 938/CHNY/2020 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Heritage Property Development The ACIT, Company (P) Ltd., vs. Company Circle II(2), Old No.38 / New No.16, Chennai. Flat No.10, Second Floor Chaithanya West Road, West CIT Nagar, Chennai – 600 035. PAN: AABCH 2971B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri K. Meenakshisundaram, ITP ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

These appeals by the assessee are arising out of the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai in & 507/2013-14 dated 17.10.2013. The assessments were framed by the ACIT Company Circle II(2), Chennai for the 2 & 938/Chny/2020 assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide orders dated 31.12.2010 & 30.12.2011 respectively.

2.

At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee Shri K. Meenakshisundaram raised preliminary objection that the Chartered Accountant, Shri R. Sadasivam appeared as per record of CIT(A) was never authorized by the assessee to argue the matter and the CIT(A) exceed in his jurisdiction in accepting the submissions made by him. The Revenue has also produced record before us i.e., the record of the CIT(A) and categorically stated by ld. Senior DR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar that the authorization letter or power of attorney in favour of Shri R. Sadasivam, CA by assessee is not at all available. On query from the Bench, how the CIT(A) allowed the unauthorized person to argue the matter, he could not counter the same. The ld.AR for the assessee made categorical statement at bar that the assessee never authorized or given any power of attorney to Shri R. Sadasivam, CA to argue the matter. Hence, he only requested that on the short point, the matter can be referred back to the file of the CIT(A) for re-deciding the appeals after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3 & 938/Chny/2020 3. We have considered this issue and admitted position is that the alleged authorized representative before CIT(A), Shri R. Sadasivam, CA was never authorized by the assessee to argue the matter and this fact has been confirmed from the records of the CIT(A). In such circumstances, we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, limited to the issue raised before us by the assessee i.e., in regard to disallowance of interest of Rs.93,16,051/- in assessment year 2005-06 and Rs.37,22,263/- in assessment year 2006-07.

4.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in & 938/CHNY/2020 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st September, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →