Selvi Wines, Madurai V. ITO Ward 4, Virudhunagar

ITA 1041/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8746 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1041/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1996-97) M/S. SELVI WINES, C/O. P.S. THANGARAJ, ITP 18, PERAKKO NAGAR, PASUMALAI, MADURAI 625 004. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, VIRDHUNAGAR PAN : ADNFS9401P ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12.2018 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 (I/C), MADURAI DATED 28.11.2017 IN ITA NO.008/2010-11 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 PASSED U/S. 250(6), R.W.S.,144 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- 2 ITA NO. 1041/CHNY/2018 1) THAT YOUR APPELLANT COULD NOT OBTAIN THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PENALTY ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 271(1)B TILL 2009 FROM THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT AND WAS SERVED ONLY AFTER ISSUE OF DIRECTION BY THE CIT-1I MADURAI AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 264 WERE UNDERGOING FOR THE AY. 1996-97. 2) THAT YOUR APPELLANT WAS ISSUED COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 144 EXPARTIE BY THE A.O FOR THE AY.1996-97 WITH HUGE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE LIABLE FOR CANCELLATION AS PER THE REMAND ORDER PASSED BY THE PREVIOUS HON'BLE CIT APPEALS-IL MADURAI. 3) THAT YOUR APPELLANT OPINED THAT THEY COULD GET MAJOR RELIEF OF THEIR TAX LIABILITY FOR THE AY.1996-97 BY WAY OF APPEAL DISPOSAL ORDER AND HENCE DID NOT PAY THE TAX AND PENALTY FOR THE AY. 1996-97. 4) THE CIT APPEALS HAS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY BY PASSING THE PRESENT APPEAL ORDER FOR THE AY.1996-97 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ITAT'S ORDER UNDER ITA NO. 1268/MDS/2011 FOR AY.1996-97 PERMITTING ADMISSION OF THEIR APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) MADURAI. 3. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 57 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE CONDONATION PETITION FOR THE DELAY BEFORE US. FURTHER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NEITHER THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE US TO PURSUE THE APPEAL. FROM THE RECORDS WE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING BY REGISTERED POST AND THE RECEIPT OF THE SAME WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.AO AND THE LD.AO HAD PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER U/S.144 OF THE ACT. FROM THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE 3 ITA NO. 1041/CHNY/2018 OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE HEREBY DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN-LIMINI. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 11 TH DECEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- /CHENNAI, /DATED 11 TH DECEMBER, 2018 RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( ) /CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER