Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai, dated 31.10.2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010.
The assessee has raised the following grounds:
I.T.A.No.285/Mds/2014. :- 2 -:
“1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of ₹44,79,956/- on the specious ground that the TDS certificate has not used the word sub contract therein.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of ₹10,21,123/- towards cash deposits unexplained in ICICI Bank account on the ground that no evidence was produced in this regard, without giving sufficient opportunity in this regard.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in disposing the appeal post haste when the notice of hearing posting the case ostensibly on 28.10.2013 when the actual date as per the notice is 30.09.2013 prompting him to dispose the appeal on the same date of hearing”.
At the time of hearing the ld. counsel submitted that the case of the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was originally fixed for hearing on 10.10.2013 at 3.10 pm. The assessee filed a petition vide letter dated 11.10.2013 in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 15.10.2013 stating that the assessee could not pursue the appeal on 10.10.2013 due to heavy rainfall and sought for reposting of the case. Consequent to this, the next date of hearing was given to the assessee fixing the case for hearing on 20.11.2013. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed the impugned order on 31.10.2013 without considering the next date of hearing on 20.11.2013. He failed to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative has not raised any serious objection.
I.T.A.No.285/Mds/2014. :- 3 -:
We have heard both the parties perused the records. As seen
from the records that no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee. Now before us, the assessee counsel prayed for one more opportunity be given before the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) to present the assessee’s case. In the interest of justice, we are in agreement with the argument of the assessee counsel and accordingly we remit the entire issue back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the direction to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to give one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. At this stage we refrain from going into the merits of the addition made by the lower authorities.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed
for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Monday, the 13th day of April, 2015, at Chennai.