VENTURE METAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1469/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that giving the assessee another opportunity to argue the case on merit would not prejudice the Revenue and would promote the cause of justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was rejected by the CIT(Appeals) because the assessee could not appear before him. The assessee's counsel requested an opportunity to argue the case on merit, as the CIT(Appeals) himself had directed the Assessing Officer to examine some issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in disposing of the appeal on merit without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Hearing: 08.03.2017Pronounced: 31.05.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Chennai, dated 28.03.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

Shri M. Karunakaran, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) after reproducing the ground of appeal, rejected the claim of the assessee since the assessee could not appear before him. According to the Ld. counsel, an opportunity may be given to the assessee to argue the case on merit. In some of the issues, the CIT(Appeals) himself directed the Assessing Officer to examine the same. Therefore, the Ld.counsel submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

3.

On the contrary, Shri Supriyo Pal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(Appeals) inspite of issue of notice. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) after considering the grounds of appeal, disposed the appeal on merit. Wherever verification is required, the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to verify.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee could not appear before the CIT(Appeals). From the order of the CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. representative for the assessee appeared before the CIT(Appeals) and sought for time. The CIT(Appeals), however, proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving one more opportunity to the assessee to argue on merit would not prejudice the interests of the Revenue. Giving one more opportunity to the assessee would definitely promote the cause of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the issue is remitted back to the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) shall reconsider the issue afresh after giving one more opportunity to the assessee. It is made clear that in case the assessee fails to appear before the CIT(Appeals) on receiving notice of hearing, the CIT(Appeals) is at liberty to dispose the appeal on merit on the basis of material available on record.

5.

With the above observation, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →