Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R assessee against the separate Orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Chennai in & 50/10-11, all dated 28.08.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 & 2008-09 respectively. & 2702/CHNY/2017 :- 2 -:
As both the appeals are related to the same assessee and involved identical issues, they are being disposed off by this common order.
Shri Mr.Saroj Parida represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the ld.A.R that the assessee was unable to be represented before the Ld.CIT(A) as its Counsel had not co-operated and represented on behalf of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). It was a prayer that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to represent its appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
4.1 It was further submitted by the ld.A.R that Assessee’s appeal in respect of was filed late by 03 days. It was a submission that an Affidavit dated 07.01.2018 has been filed by assessee for condonation of delay. It was a submission that the delay was on account of filing all the appeals together for assessment years 2006-07 & 2008-09. As the assessee was taken an impression that the Miscellaneous Petition dated 18.09.2017, which had been filed against the order of the CIT(Appeals), would be disposed off, the assessee would get relief. It was submitted that when Miscellaneous Petition was rejected, the assessee had & 2702/CHNY/2017 :- 3 -: immediately filed appeals to this Tribunal on 10.11.2017. It was the prayer that the appeal filed by the assessee belatedly 03 days may be condoned.
In my opinion, the reasons shown are justified and hence, 03 days delay in filing the appeal in respect of before this Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
In reply, ld.D.R strongly supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that assessee has not been represented before the Ld.CIT(A), though ld.CIT(A) has granted the assessee substantial number of opportunities. However, considering the principles of natural justice, I am of the view that the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee another opportunity to represent its appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). In these circumstances, the issues in both the appeals of assessee are restored to the file & 2702/CHNY/2017 :- 4 -:
of the Ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes