Kugel Developers Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 175/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61006 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND BABUNATH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.175/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S KUGEL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD TIMES PARTNER NO.58, PERAMBUR BARRACKS ROAD VEPERY, CHENNAI 600 007 [ PAN AADCK3129N ] VS THE DY. CIT COMPANY WARD II(4) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANAND BABUNATH, FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 17-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-04-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-III, CHENNAI, DATED 8.11.2011. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.10.2011, THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT WHICH WAS EVIDE NCED FROM THE COPY OF EXTRACT OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER MAINTAINED B Y THE LD.CIT(A)-III, I.T.A.NO. 175/2012 :- 2 -: CHENNAI. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ON 24.10.2 011 THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT PRESENT AT HIS OFFICE AT THE TIME FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORT UNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 3. THE LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING RE STORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS PO STED ON 13.9.2011. ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS AGAIN POSTED FO R HEARING ON 24.10.2011. THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD.CI T(A) AS ACCORDING TO HIM NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING FI XED ON 24.10.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALONGWITH THE APPEAL MEMO A N EXTRACT FROM THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER MAINTAINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE LD.CIT(A)-III, CHENNAI, WHEREFROM IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI ANANDD BABUNATH HAD APPEARED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 24.10.2011 AND SIGNED THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER. FURTHER, IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD.CIT(A) IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORI TY. 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 T HE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSES SEE FAILS TO PUT IN I.T.A.NO. 175/2012 :- 3 -: APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM SO T HAT 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 BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN LIMINE WAS NOT PROPER AND JUSTIFIED. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MA TTER BACK TO HIS FILE TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTI ES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-0 4-2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20 TH APRIL, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR