SANJAY KUMAR B KOTHARI, MUMBAI V. ITO 17(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2182/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6686 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JAYANT R BHAT

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . , ! BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND RAJENDRA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.2182/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SANJAY KUMAR B. KOTHARI, 7 RADHIKA BUILDING, SAI KRUPA CO. OP. SOC., NEAR MUNICIPAL SCHOOL, DADAR, MUMBAI 400014 ' ' ' ' / VS. THE ITO 17(1)(1), 1 ST FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI 400012. $ ./ % ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AGZPK 6536C ( $& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '($& / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. JAY ANT R. BHAT RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEERAJA PRADHAN ' ) *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 19/06/2014 ,-# ) *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/06/2014 . / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-29, MUMBAI DATED 4/1/2013 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 20008-09. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION STATING THAT NOBODY HAD APPEARED ON VARIOUS DATES. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON SUCH APPOINTED DATE. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON P ROCEEDING BE RESTORED AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THE HONOURABLE MEMBER DEEMS FIT. ./ I.T.A. NO.2182/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 2 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), WHEREBY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND ON T HE FIXED DATE OF HEARING. LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED OR REFERRED TO THE GRIE VANCES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HER. EVEN THOUGH IT IS CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AN APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR ADJOURNMENT, HOWEVER, NOT GOING INTO THAT ASPECT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(A) UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) IS REQUIRED TO D ISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BY AN ORDER IN WRITING STATING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINAT ION AND THE DECISION THEREOF AND ALSO THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. IN OUR OPINION LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IN-LIMINE AND THIS HAS SO BEE N HELD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT THEMIS BIOSYN LTD., VS . JCIT, 74 ITR 339 (AHD). ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASID E THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING. TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE FROM ASSESSEES SIDE WE DIRECT TH E ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ON 12/8/2014 WHEN THE HEARING OF THE APP EAL SHALL BE TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A). WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. LD. AR TOOK NOTE O F THE PROCEEDINGS HELD TODAY WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO RECEIVE NOTICE FOR HEARING BE FORE LD. CIT(A) ON 12/8/2014. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/06/2014 . . ) ,-# / 0'1 19/06/2014 - ) 2 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) . . (I.P.BANSAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 0' DATED 19/06/2014 . ' . .VM , SR. PS ./ I.T.A. NO.2182/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 3 . . . . ) )) ) '*3 '*3 '*3 '*3 43#* 43#* 43#* 43#* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. '($& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 5 / CIT 5. 362 '*' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 27 8 / GUARD FILE. .' .' .' .' / BY ORDER, (3* '* //TRUE COPY// 9 99 9 / : : : : (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI