M/s. Victory Laminations Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1743/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64543 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1743/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S. VICTORY LAMINATIONS LTD. M/S.SUBBARAYA AIYAR, PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES NEW NO.75A (OLD NO.105A), DR.RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004. PAN: AAACV2002N VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-III(4) , CHENNAI-34. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. S.MOHARANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)III, CHENNAI DATE D 12.07.2012. 2. THE COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A VERY GOOD CASE ON MERITS BUT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-APPEARANCE. HE FURTHER PLEA DED THAT ITA NO.1743/MDS/2012 2 AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO P RESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE D.R. REPRESENTING THE DE PARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT AMPLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS IN HIS CASE BUT THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE DR CONTENDED THAT A P ERUSAL OF THE ORDER DATED 12 TH JULY, 2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED BY THE CIT( A) BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL DILIGE NTLY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE IM PUGNED ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAD GRANTED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLEAD THE CASE. THE CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR HIS A.R. H AS APPEARED IN ANY OF THE DATES BEFORE HIM. ON EACH DATE, THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT PURSUED THE APPEAL DILIGENTLY BEFORE THE CIT(A). N EVERTHELESS, THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT.LTD. REPORTED AS 38 ITR 320(DEL ) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN C ASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT., REPORTED AS 223 ITR ITA NO.1743/MDS/2012 3 480(MP). THE ACT DOES NOT CONFER ANY POWER ON THE C IT(A) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. RATHER, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO GRANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE TO PLEAD HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE FILE BACK TO THE CIT(A ) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( DR. O.K.NARAYANAN ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.