KANCHANDEVI CHALLANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

Facts apropos are that assessee a dealer in silver items and 2. chains had filed return of income for assessment year 2012-2013 disclosing income of �8,70,790/- and for assessment year 2013-2014 & 3213/Mds/16. :- 2 -: disclosing income of �8,91,350/-. The assessment for assessment year 2012-2013 was completed by the ld. Assessing Officer making an addition for interest of �12,01,703/- on a loan which was taken over by a firm. There was an addition of �1,05,369/- for difference in opening capital account. Assessee had claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act on capital gains, on which there was an addition of �2,17,828/-. There was an addition of �1,76,580/- rejecting a bill issued by M/s. ADJ Jewellery P. Ltd .

For assessment year 2013-2014, there was a disallowance 3. of �12,56,415/-. This represented interest on loans earlier taken by the assessee. Interest on these loans as per ld. Assessing Officer was to be paid by the firm which had taken over the loan and not assessee.

Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal for both years before 4. ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Assessee had filed written submissions on 29.08.2016. Ld. Authorised Representative of assessee filed a letter dated 19.09.2016 in the office of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) requesting for an adjournment and posting of the cases in the third week of October, 2016. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not give time sought by the assessee but choose to decide the appeals based on the written & 3213/Mds/16. :- 3 -: submissions filed on 29.08.2016. As per ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nothing was mentioned in the adjournment letter regarding any requirement to collect any further information from the assessee. He dismissed the appeals of the assessee for both the years.

Ld. Departmental Representative fairly stated that matter 6. could be looked again by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after giving an opportunity to the assessee to represent its case. & 3213/Mds/16. :- 4 -:

I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 7. orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed by the Revenue that ld. Authorised Representative had filed before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) a letter seeking time upto third week of October, 2016. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) chose to go by the written submissions filed by the assessee on 29.08.2016. We find that ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee had appeared before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 29.08.2016, when the written submissions were filed. It was mentioned by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that date of subsequent hearing was fixed on 19.09.2016 with the consent of ld. Authorised Representative. Be that as it may, once the ld. Authorised Representative of assessee filed a letter on 19.09.2016 seeking time upto third week of October, 2016, I am of the opinion that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have fairly given time. I am therefore of the opinion that the appeals having been decided ex-parte require a fresh look by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for both years. I set aside the order of the lower of the ld. CIT(A) for both the years and remit the appeals back to his file for consideration afresh, after giving one more opportunity to the & 3213/Mds/16. :- 5 -: assessee for representing his case.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 11th day of January, 2017, at Chennai.