Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt. ... vs Dcit, Bangalore on 4 November, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"A" BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.435/Bang/2011
Assessment year : 2008-09
M/s. Skyline Construction & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of
Housing Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax,
No.11, Hayes Road, Central Circle 1(1),
Bangalore - 560 025. Bangalore.
PAN: AAHCS 0232N
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by : Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Respondent by : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)
Date of hearing : 01.11.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2016
ORDER
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds.
"1. That the above orders of the authorities below in so far as it is against the assessee is against the law, facts, circumstances, ITA No.435/Bang/2011 Page 2 of 4 natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law.
2. The Learned CIT-A erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by holding that appeal is not maintainable u/s. 249(4) of the Act.
3. That the total income computed and the total tax computed is hereby disputed.
4. The search purportedly U/s 132 and all proceedings connected therewith and subsequent to, is against the law and requires to be vacated as such.
5. a) The assessment is bad in law as there is no undisclosed income, hence the assessment requires to be quashed.
b) The notices and all subsequent proceedings are not as per law and bad in law, requires to be quashed.
6. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. No opportunity has been given before levy of interest. Further prays that the interest should be levied only on returned income.
7. Without prejudice to the appellant's right of seeking waiver before appropriate authority the appellant begs for consequential relief in the levy of interest V/s 234A, 234B and 234C.
10. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered."
2. During the course of hearing of appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that tax on returned income was not paid at the time of filing of appeal, whereas the assessee has paid ITA No.435/Bang/2011 Page 3 of 4 the taxes on the retuned income on 31.3.2010 during the pendency of appeal. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without dealing the issues on merit. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that in the interest of justice, the order of CIT(Appeals) be set aside and the matter be restored to his file for readjudication of the appeal afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3. Having carefully examined the order of CIT(Appeals) in the light of rival submissions, we find that CIT(Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in the light of the fact that tax on returned income was paid by the assessee during the pendency of the appeal. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 04th day of November, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
( S. JAYARAMAN ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV )
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Bangalore,
Dated, the 04th November, 2016.
/D S/
ITA No.435/Bang/2011
Page 4 of 4
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
6. Guard file
By order
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Bangalore.