IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] I.T.A.NO. 1064/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 SMT. KAVITHA GARG NO.19 NEW SOLIAPPAN STREET OLD WASHERMANPET CHENNAI 600 021 [PAN AJCPK7994B] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BUSINESS WARD VI(3) CHENNAI ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A.NO.1065/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 M/S JA I BHAGWAN GARG & SONS NO.45, GA ROAD 1 FLOOR, OLD WASHERMANPET CHENNAI 600 021 [PAN AADHJ4513Q] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BUSINESS WARD VI(3) CHENNAI ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A.NO.1066/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 M/S MADANLAL BANSAL & SONS NO.19 NEW SOLIAPPAN STREET OLD WASHERMANPET CHENNAI 600 021 [PAN AAGHM4956H] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BUSINESS WARD VI(3) CHENNAI ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DASGUPTA, JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 08 - 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 08 - 2012 I.T.A.NO. 1064,1065 & 1066/12 : - 2 - : O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) - IX, CHE NNAI, BUT DATED 27.3.2012, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2 . IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHEREIN THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THEIR APPEALS ON NON - APPEARANCE ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING. 3 . THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO REPRESENT THESE ASSESSEES BEFORE THE CIT(A) . HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD SOME PERSONAL DIFFICULTIES AND THEREFORE, WAS NOT PRESENT ON THE DATES OF HEARIN G FIXED BY THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE A VERY GOOD CASE AND ALSO HAVE ALL THE MATERIALS TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEES TO PRESENT THEIR APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE ALSO MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT HE UNDERTAKES TO APPEAR BEFOR E THE CIT(A) ON THE DATE OF HEARING IF THE ASSESSEES WERE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A.NO. 1064,1065 & 1066/12 : - 3 - : 4 . THE DR DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO RESTOR ING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE S . 5 . AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 3 OF H IS ORDER THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEES BUT THEY D ID NOT APPEAR ON ANY OF THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING, THEREFORE, HE DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CIT(A) IS A QUAS I - JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT A QUASI - JUDICIAL AUTHORITY SHOULD DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PUT IN APPEARANC E ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM SO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO MEET ITS CASE IN APPEAL BEFORE A HIGHER FORUM. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL S BY THE CIT(A) WAS NOT PROPER AND JUSTIFIED. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER S OF THE CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE S ON MERITS AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. I.T.A.NO. 1064,1065 & 1066/12 : - 4 - : 6 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AR E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 09 TH OF AUGUST , 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S.SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09 TH AUGUST , 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / CIT(A) /CIT/ DR