Jay Jay Polymers, CHENNAI V. JCIT, Pondicherry

ITA 1140/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61309 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VI KRAMADITYA
• Assessee Lawyers: L MOHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1140/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005- 06 JAY JAY POLYMERS, RS NO. 23/4 MANGLAM ROAD, URUVAIYUR VILLAGE, VILLIANUR COMMUNE, PONDICHERY. [PAN:AADFJ7150K] VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PONDICHERY RANGE, PONDICHERY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI L. MOHAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAMADITYA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 24.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.07.2012 ORDER PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), XII, CHENNAI DATED 15.02.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SHRI L. MOHAN, ADVOCAT E REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI VIKRAMADITYA, JCIT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMI SSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 114 44 40 00 0/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 2 3. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ON THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) DUE TO SOME VALID AND PROPER REASONS AND PRAYED THAT THE ASSESS EE MAY BE ALLOWED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR MAKING ITS SUBMISSIONS AND FUR NISHING NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS). 4. THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE DID NOT OBJECT FOR THE RESTORATION OF APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. WE FIND THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) POSTED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE ON THESE DAYS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), APPLYING THE DECISIONS OF MULTIPLAN LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND LATE TUKOJI RAO 223 ITR 480 (MP) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON MERITS ALSO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT PASSED ANY SPEAKING OR DER. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND RES TORE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.11 1111 114 44 40 00 0/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 3 6. SINCE, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES IN APPEAL AFRESH, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATION BY US. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 24 TH JULY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE - PRESIDENT (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBE R CHENNAI, DATED, THE 24.07.2012 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.