, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I.T.A. NO.1837/MUM/11 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) C2M TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD. 10-A, LALWANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, G.D.AMBEDKAR ROAD, WADALA, MUMBAI - 400031 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 6(2) AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCA4322H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 27.05.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.06.2016 !' / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.20 10 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHEREIN THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE AP PEAL IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION CONTAINTED IN SECTION 249(4) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN SHORT THE ACT) BECAUSE AT THE RELEV ANT TIME THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PAY ADMITTED TAX. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI JITENDRA SINGH DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI K. RAVI KIRAN I.T.A. NO.1837/MUM/11 A.Y. 2002-03 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEAR NED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THIS IS A SECOND ROUND OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TRIBUNAL. IN THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2 1.11.2008, THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO PASS THE FRESH ORDER AFTER GIVING AN ADEQ UATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ORDER WAS PASSED AGAIN ST EX-PARTE. THEREAFTER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE MATT ER OF CONTROVERSY AND PASSED THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2010 B Y ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ADMITTED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-FURNISHING THE TAX. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT NOW THE CONTROVERSY IS QUITE CLEAR IN VIEW OF THE LAW SETTLED IN [2012] 19 TAXMANN.COM 154, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX III VS. K. SATISH KUMAR SINGH WHEREIN IT IS HELD THE EVEN AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL IF THE TAX IS PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE THEN THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE ADMITTED AND DECIDED ON MERI T. NOW COMING TO THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETA ILS OF PAYMENT OF TAX FOR THE A.Y.2002-03 AT PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK , NO DOUBT IT IS FURTHER REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF CHALLANS WHICH HAS BEEN ATTACHED AT PAGE 4 TO 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH SPE AKS ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX TO THE AUTHORITY. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE MENTIONED LAW PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III VS. K. SATISH KUMAR SINGH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE ADMITTED TAX I.T.A. NO.1837/MUM/11 A.Y. 2002-03 3 EVEN AFTER FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THEN THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT, THEREF ORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAID LAW WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN QUESTION AND DIRECT THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONCERNED TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRES H ON MERITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AFTER GIVING FULL AND ADEQU ATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (AMARJIT SINGH) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $% ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER & ' MUMBAI; (! DATED : 3 RD JUNE, 2016 MP MP MP MP !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+, %%-. , -. , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ,/0 1 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, * % //TRUE COPY// $ / % & (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI