The
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Shri Shanmugam Senthilkumar vs. The
Income Tax Officer ordered Commissioner of
Income Tax
(Appeals) to elaborate on the reasons for the late-night hearing which
was considered as a breach of onerous duty as it reduces working
efficiency and as a consequence passing of a misleading order.
The petitioner named Shri Shanmugam Senthilkumar who was the Ld.
counsel for the assessee was of the contention that a person who
appeared before the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) was the office staff and not the Chartered Accountant. And the Commissioner of
Income Tax
(Appeals) was negligent in making the note of this fact and as a
consequence disposed of the appeal without taking into consideration the
material facts on record. Also, the petitioner contended that the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) used to make practitioners wait for
a long duration i.e. from 9 PM to 10 PM and passed such misleading and
erroneous order.
Further, it was also contended that instead of passing a speaking order the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) disposed of the appeal on the basis of summarization of the material facts by the
assessing officer.
The
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
comprising of S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member, and N.R.S. Ganesan,
Judicial Member allowed the appeal by passing an order stating that the
order passed by Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) is set aside. Further the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals)
is under the onerous duty of imparting justice cannot Working
Efficiency in a negligent manner. Wherefore, the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) was asked to give reasons for passing such kind of order.
Also with regards to making practitioners wait from 9 PM to 10 PM needs
to be avoided and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) needs to
confine the hearing in the working hours only.