M/s. Falcon Tyres Limited, Mysore V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -14, Bangalore

ITA 1342/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7588 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMOD SINGH
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE S HRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T . A. NO S . 1342 & 1343 /BANG/20 16 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 & 2012 - 13) M/S. FALCON TYRES LIMITED, KRS ROAD, METAGALLI, MYS ORE - 570 016 . . APPELLANT. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - 14, LTU, BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLAN T BY : NONE. R E SPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SINGH, CIT (DR) DATE OF H EARING : 01.08.2017. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 20 .0 9 .201 7 . O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS BOTH DT.18.05.2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 14, LTU, BANGALORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THESE APPEALS WERE CALLED FOR HEARING. IT TRANSPIRES FROM RECORD THAT THE NOTICE 2 IT A NO S . 1342 & 1343 /BANG/20 16 ISSUED THROUGH RPAD HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARK THAT THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IS LOCKED OUT. WE FURTHER NO TE THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY RECORDING THE FACT THAT DESPITE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND FIXING THE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND AND APPEA R TO PRESENT I TS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED TH IS FACT EVEN IN GROUND NO.6 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE FACTORY AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPELLANT WERE CLOSED FROM THE CALENDAR YEAR 2014 AND THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STAFF MEMBER, HE SHOULD OF GIVEN FAIR, PR OPER, ADEQUATE, SUFFICIENT, REAL AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE HIM IN VIEW OF THE DISTANCE PARTICULARLY BETWEEN BANGALORE AND KOLKATA WHERE THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE APPELLANT WAS SITUATED. 3. THUS IT I S CLEAR THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE FACTORY AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CLOSED SINCE THE YEAR 2014 T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE PROPER ADDRESS WHERE THE N OTICE COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A SITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT GIVEN THE ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE AND ALSO NOT KEEPING 3 IT A NO S . 1342 & 1343 /BANG/20 16 TRACK OF THE APPEALS AFTER FILING , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS AND SINCERE IN PROSECUTING THE PRESENT APPEALS. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS NARRATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED IN PARAS 3 TO 5 AS UNDER : 4 IT A NO S . 1342 & 1343 /BANG/20 16 4. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT IMPROVED DESPITE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED FOR NON - REPRESENTATION. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION AND CONVINCING REASONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT CAUSING THE APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20TH SEPT ., 2017. SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUD ICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 20 .0 9 .2017. *REDDY GP