M.Bhawarlal, Vellore V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2233/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1084 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.2230 TO 2232 & 2235 TO 2238(MDS)/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2007-08, 2002-03, 2001-02, 2003-04 & 2004-05) SHRI B.KISHORE KUMAR, 4/22, BAZAR STREET, VIRINJIPURAM-632 104, VELLORE DISTRICT. PAN AKHPK9007E. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NOS.2233 & 2234(MDS)/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 2005-06) SHRI M.BHAWARLAL, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 4/22, BAZAR STREET, VS. OF IN COME-TAX, VIRINJIPURAM-632 104, CENTR AL CIRCLE IV(1), VELLORE DISTRICT. CHENNAI. PAN AACPB0982A. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI B.RAMAKRI SHNAN, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.MADHAVAN, IRS, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 11 TH MARCH, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 TH MARCH, 2013 - - ITA 2230 TO 2238 OF 2012 2 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS A BUNCH OF NINE APPEALS. ALL THE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS)-I AT CHENNAI, ALL DATED 17-10-2012. T HE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTIO N 143(3), READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPEAL FILED BY SHRI M.BHAWARLAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 ARISES OUT OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. IN THE CASE OF SHRI B.KISHORE KUMAR, ALL THE FI RST APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) THROUGH HIS COMMON ORDER DATED 17-10-2 012. LIKEWISE, IN THE CASE OF SHRI M.BHAWARLAL, THE FIRS T APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER OF EVEN DATE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS IN LIMINE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEES DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM OR CAUSED TO AP PEAR BEFORE HIM, INSPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY HIM. IT IS THE CASE - - ITA 2230 TO 2238 OF 2012 3 OF THE ASSESSEES THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS WITHOUT GOING INTO TH E MERITS OF THE CASES AND AS SUCH THE IMPUGNED DISMISSAL ORDERS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4. WE HEARD SHRI B.RAMAKRISHNAN, THE LEARNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEES AN D SHRI N.MADHAVAN, THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN UMPTEEN NUMBER OF OPP ORTUNITIES FOR THE ASSESSEES TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AND PRESENT THEIR CASES. ATLEAST TEN NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES, AS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. BUT, INSPITE OF ALL THESE EFF ORTS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM, THE ASSESSEES DID NOT APPEAR BE FORE HIM. IT IS IN THESE PROVOCATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) WAS CONSTRAINED TO DISMISS THE APPEALS IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 6. BUT, THE FACT IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E- TAX(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED ALL APPEALS IN LIMINE ON THE TECHNICAL - - ITA 2230 TO 2238 OF 2012 4 GROUND OF NON PROSECUTION OF THE APPEALS. HE HAS N OT CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN ALL THESE APPEALS. IT I S A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN IF APPEALS ARE DECIDED EX PARTE, THE APPE ALS MUST BE DISPOSED OFF AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEES AND THAT TOO THROUGH A SPEAKING ORDER. A N APPEAL CANNOT BE REJECTED AS SUCH FOR THE REASON THAT THER E WAS NO APPEARANCE. UNLESS THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAWS THE APPE AL OR DOES NOT PRESS THE APPEAL, IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), WHO IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, TO SUO MOTU EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS REFLECTED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. A PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS ALWAYS EXPECTED TO P ERFORM HIS DUTIES JUDICIOUSLY AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN THOUGH THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPE ALS EX PARTE IS JUSTIFIED, THE NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEES A S SUCH, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE APPEALS IN LIMINE . 7. THEREFORE, ALL THESE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ARE SET ASIDE. THE FILES ARE R EMITTED BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) WITH A D IRECTION TO REINSTATE ALL THESE APPEALS ON HIS ROLLS AND DISPOS E THEM OFF ON - - ITA 2230 TO 2238 OF 2012 5 THEIR MERITS, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEES OPPORTUNIT IES OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN RESULT, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE TREATED AS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME O F HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 11 TH OF MARCH, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 11 TH MARCH, 2013. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.