EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, dated 15.12.2017 relevant to the assessment year 2004-05.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 25.10.2004 declaring loss of ₹. 11,92,31,315/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noticed that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and proceedings under section 147 of the Act was initiated by serving notice under section 148 of the Act. As requested, the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment was communicated to the assessee. After considering the objections as well as details filed against statutory notices, the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 27.12.2011 was completed by assessing the loss at ₹. 10,87,99,439/- after making various disallowances.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against both the assessment orders. By considering the facts and materials available on record including written submissions, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against both the appellate orders. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee filed the adjournment application before the ld. CIT(A) much before the date of hearing besides the authorized representative of the assessee caused appearance before the ld. CIT(A) prior to the date of passing of order, wherein the ld. CIT(A) without even considering the said application and/ or granting a next date for appearance, erroneously dismissed the appeals suo moto, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which are totally against the law of natural justices. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for directing the ld. CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and adjudicate the issues after considering the submissions in both cases.

On the other hand, the ld. DR fairly conceded that the appeals may be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and adjudicate the issues for adjudication of the issues on merits after considering the submissions of the assessee.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In both the appellate orders, admittedly, there is no mention of service of notice or reasons for rejecting the adjournment petition of the assessee. The material available on record and the written submissions filed along with the appeals were taken into account and the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the issues on merits without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is totally against the principles of natural justice. Under these facts and circumstances, we set aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and remit both the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 25th July, 2019 in Chennai.