Shri Satish Kumar Tripathi, Rewa V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rewa

ITA 217/JAB/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8583 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: I B KHANDEL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR H S MODH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A NO.217/JAB/2018 1 SATISH KUMAR TRIPATHI V. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE S/SHRI NRS GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 217/JAB/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI SATISH KUMAR TRIPATHI, MAUGANJ BARATHA MORE, MANGANGREWA, REWA (MP) (PAN : ABTPT 6483E) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, REWA (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY DR. H.S MODH, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SHRI I.B. KHANDEL, DR DATE OF HEARING 16/7/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/7/2020 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, JABALPUR ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 23.8.2018, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTEST ING HIS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREI NAFTER) DATED 14.6.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. 2.1 THE APPEAL RAISES AS MANY AS SIX GROUNDS, AGITA TING SEVERAL ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES. AT THE VERY OUTSET, HOWEVER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT ON MERITS, BUT A N IN LIMINE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSE-APPEL LANT. I.T.A NO.217/JAB/2018 2 SATISH KUMAR TRIPATHI V. ITO 2.2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DR. MODH, WOU LD, UPON BEING ASKED BY THE BENCH THE REASON/S FOR NON-REPRESENTATION, EXPL AINED, WITH REFERENCE TO PARA 2 (PG.2) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 25.6.2018 (FOR 06.7.2018), FURNISHING THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING WAS K EPT AT 21.8.2018, WHICH THOUGH COULD NOT BE ATTENDED AS THE ASSESSEES COUN SEL WAS OCCUPIED IN TAX AUDIT WORK. THE ASSESSEE DISPATCHED THE ADJOURNMENT APPLI CATION (PB. PG.2) THROUGH COURIER (FROM REWA) ON 20.8.2018 (PB PG.1), WHICH H OWEVER WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) ONLY ON 24.8.2018 (PB. PG3). THE LD. CIT(A) HAD, HOWEVER, PROCEEDED EX PARTE THE ASSESSE-APPELLANT ON 23.8.2018 ITSELF, WITHOUT EVEN, AS HIS ORDER SHOWS, CONSIDERING THE DETAILS/E XPLANATIONS ALREADY FURNISHED AND ON RECORD. THE MATTER, THEREFORE, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A). THE LD. DR, SHRI KHANDEL, WO ULD OBJECT, STATING THAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND THE ASSES SEE IS USING DILATORY TACTICS, SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER. TH IS WAS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, THE LAST DATE OF COMPLETION OF TAX AUDIT, I.E., 30.9.2018, WAS ONE-AND-A-HALF MONTHS AWAY. THE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT WARRANT ANY INDULGENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS FILED ON 05.7.2016, AND FIXED FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 06.7.2018, I.E., AFTER TWO YEARS. WHERE, ONE WONDERS, THEN, WAS THE URGENCY IN PROCEEDING EX PARTE THE ASSESSE-APPELLANT ON, EVEN ASSUMING SO, NON-COMPLIANCE ON ONE DATE. T HE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT, BY JOINING THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FIRST DATE HEARING I TSELF, FURNISHING THE REPLY, EXHIBITED HIS INTENT TO PROSECUTE HIS APPEAL. THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR ARE WITHOUT FORCE. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER CHALLENG E BEING PURSUANT TO THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 28.5.2015 (IN ITA NO.179/JAB /2014), THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT, IN STRICT SENSE, BE SAID TO BE THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE I.T.A NO.217/JAB/2018 3 SATISH KUMAR TRIPATHI V. ITO TRIBUNAL. IF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECALCITRANT EARLIER, THAT WAS A MATTER TO BE CANVASSED DURING THE EARLIER HEARING AND CONSIDERED AT THAT STAGE, WHICH ASPECT IS TO BE REGARDED AS CLOSED. AGAIN, REFERENCE TO TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER, ALSO SOUGHT TO BE MADE BY THE LD. DR DURING HEARING, IS NOT RELEVANT AT THIS STAGE, AS THE SAME IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE DECIDING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS, WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLU DE THE ASPECT OF FURNISHING EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM, AND QUA WHICH THE LAW IS WELL DEFINED. THAT IS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR OR COOP ERATE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OR THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH COULD WELL BE THE CA SE, HE DOES SO AT HIS OWN PERIL. THE LAW (S.250(6)) CONTEMPLATES AN ORDER ON MERITS BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION/ SUBMISSIONS FORMING PART OF THE RECORD. WE ACCORDINGLY HAVE NO HESITATION IN, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CI T(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE, EVEN AS ASSURED BY THE SHRI MODH, SHALL EXTEND FULL COOPERATION IN THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDING S. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 16, 2020 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16/07/2020 AKS (P) I.T.A NO.217/JAB/2018 4 SATISH KUMAR TRIPATHI V. ITO COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: SHRI SATISH KUMAR TRIPATHI, MAUGANJ BARATHA MORE, MANGANGREWA, REWA 2. THE RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, REWA 3. THE CONCERNEDPR. C.I.T. 4. THE CIT (A) 1 JABALPUR 5. SR. DR, ITAT 6. GUARD FILE