VANDHE MATHARAM MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by not providing the assessee an opportunity to comment on the remand report, violating the principle of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessees were delayed. The assessees raised a preliminary objection regarding the CIT(Appeals) relying on a remand report without providing a copy or seeking comments.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) violated the principle of natural justice by relying on a remand report without giving the assessee an opportunity to respond to it.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI V. DURGA RAO
आदेश /O R D E R
PER BENCH:
All these appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08.
While in the case of Manimutharu Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. and Shri M. Kannan, both the parties have delayed in filing the appeals by 5 days, in the case of Vandhe Matharam Medical Research Centre, the assessee has delayed in filing the appeals by 39 days. Both the parties have filed petitions requesting to condone the delay. As per the petition filed by the Revenue, the delay was due to the burden of additional charge being held by the DCIT and shortage of his staff, hence the appeal papers could not be processed in time. As per the assessee’s petition, though the assessee had filed the respective appeals in time, it could not remit the filing fee since there was no PAN for the said assessee. Hence, the delay was in obtaining PAN for the respective assessee. We have gone through the petitions filed by both the parties. We are satisfied that reasonable cause has been shown in the said petitions filed by both the Revenue and assessee. Hence we condone the delay and admit the respective appeals in I.T.A. Nos.1106 to 1110/Mds/2013 and I.T.A. Nos. 1375 & 1376/Mds/2013. grounds of appeal is as under:-
“The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on the remand report from the Assessing Officer without supplying a copy of it or confronting/seeking comments of the assessee during the hearing.”
When these appeals had come up for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) reling on the remand report, decided the appeals. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given any opportunity to the assessee to comment upon the remand report. Therefore, it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice, Hence, the ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for an opportunity to comment upon the remand report before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
On the other hand, the ld. D.R. fairly accepted that the appeals may be remitted back to ld. CIT(Appeals).
We have heard both sides and perused the record. On going through the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), we strongly feel that these appeals are to be remitted back to ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to give an opportunity to the assessee to comment on the remand report obtained from the A.O. After considering the submissions of the assessee on remand report, the
In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 25th of March, 2015 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026