Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:
ITA Nos.2066 & 2067/Chny/2019 are appeals filed by an assessee against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in and I.T.A. No.279/CIT(A)-5/2013- 14, both dated 30.04.2019 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. ITA Nos.2068 & 2069/Chny/2019 are appeals filed by an assessee against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Chennai)-5 in I.T.A. No.259/CIT(A)-5/2013-14 & I.T.A. No.280/CIT(A)- 5/2013-14, both dated 30.04.2019 for the Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. Assessee against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Chennai)-5 in I.T.A. No.411/CIT(A)-5/2013-14 dated 30.04.2019 for the Assessment Year 2009- 10.
ITA Nos.2066&2067/Chny/2019, & I.T.A.No.2070/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: The issues involved in all these appeals are common, heard together and consequently all these appeals are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of brevity.
Mr. D. Anand, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and 2. Mr. J. Pavithran Kumar, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that in all these appeals, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals as ex-parte. It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that though opportunities have been granted, the Authorized Representative of the assessee had sought adjournment. It was a submission that the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee had expired four months ago. It was a submission that the assessee’s may be granted another opportunity of being heard.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
A perusal of the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shows that the Authorized Representative of the assessee had ITA Nos.2066&2067/Chny/2019, & I.T.A.No.2070/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: sought for adjournment and the same has been rejected on the ground that valid ground for adjournment had not been submitted. It is also an admitted fact that the learned Authorized Representative who was representing in all these cases as expired around four months ago. In the circumstances, considering the submission of the new Authorized Representative and in the interest of natural justice, the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in all these appeals are set aside and the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-adjudication on merits after granting the assessees adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeals of the assessees in and I.T.A. Nos.2068&2069/Chny/2019 and I.T.A.No.2070/Chny/2019 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th January, 2020 in Chennai.