The Tiruchirapalli District Central ... vs Assessee

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, CHENNAI ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य एवं ी वी. दग ु ा$ राव, या%यक सद य केसम&

BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1791/Mds/2013 %नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2010-11

The Tiruchirapalli District Central The Deputy Commissioner of Cooperative Bank Ltd., v. Income Tax, P.B. No.324, Fort Station Road, Circle I(1), Tiruchirapalli. Tiruchirapalli.

PAN : AAAAT 5036 C (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/Appellant by : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate ,-यथ+ क. ओर से/Respondent by : Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT - DR

सन ु वाई क. तार ख/Date of Hearing : 25.02.2015 घोषणा क. तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 05.03.2015

आदे श /O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli,

dated 26.07.2013 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11.

2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a co-operative bank. It

had filed its return of income by declaring NIL income. The return 2 I.T.A. No. 1791/Mds/2013

filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 and after due process, the assessment was

completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The A.O. has

disallowed various claims made by the assessee and the same was

considered as income of the assessee.

3. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before

the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) sustained the additions

made by the A.O. and thus confirmed the order of the A.O.

4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in

appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld.counsel

for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had received the

notice of hearing dated 24.07.2013 and the case was fixed for

hearing by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on 25.07.2013. The order was

passed on 26.07.2013. The Ld. counsel submitted that no sufficient

opportunity was given to the assessee to represent its case before

the first appellate authority in a proper perspective. He pleaded that

the matter may go back to the assessee giving a reasonable

opportunity to plead its case before the first appellate authority.

5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. supported the orders passed

by the authorities below.

3 I.T.A. No. 1791/Mds/2013

6. We have heard both sides and perused the records and

gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the notice

filed by the assessee, we find that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had issued

the notice of hearing on 24.7.2013 asking the assessee to appear

on 25.07.02013 at 3.30 P.M. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed an

order very next day, i.e. 26.07.2013. From the above it is clear that

the assessee has got only one day time to represent its case before

the Ld. CIT(Appeals). In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) ought to

have given some more reasonable time to the assessee to plead its

case before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice and also by

considering the principle of natural justice, we set aside the order

passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and we direct the Ld. CIT(Appeals)

to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and

decide the issue raised by it in accordance with law.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 5th of March, 2015 at

Chennai.

sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (वी. दग ु ा$ राव) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (V. Durga Rao) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या%यक सद य/Judicial Member

चे नई/Chennai, th >दनांक/Dated, the 5 March, 2015.

Kri. 4 I.T.A. No. 1791/Mds/2013

आदे श क. ,%त@लAप अBेAषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant 2. ,-यथ+/Respondent 3. आयकर आयC ु त (अपील)/CIT(A), Tiruchirapalli 4. आयकर आयC ु त/CIT-I, Tiruchirapalli 5. Aवभागीय ,%त%न ध/DR 6. गाड$ फाईल/GF.