M/s Jindal Polyester Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Bulandshahr

ITA 2325/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61803 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRUJANI MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.2323, 2324, 2325 & 2326/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99, 1999-2000, 03-04 & 05-06) JINDAL POLYESTER LTD., VS. ACIT, CIRCLE (NOW KNOWN AS JJINDAL POLY FILMS LTD.), BULANDSHA HR, PLOT NO.12, SECTOR B-1, LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI (PAN/GIR NO.AAACJ7650E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL, MANAGER (T AXATION) REVENUE BY : SHRI SRUJANI MOHANTY, SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, JM THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), MEERUT ALL DATED 2.2.2011, RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2003-04 & 05-06, RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN DISMISSAL OF APPEALS EX-PARTE WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUES INVOLVED HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BESIDES RAI SING OTHER GROUNDS. 2. ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT, BUT HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE APPEALS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED ON THE VERY FIRST ISSUE, HE SHALL WITHDRAW THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION IN ALL T HESE CASES AND WHILE MAKING ENDORSEMENT TO THIS EFFECT, HE HAS WITHDRAWN THE AP PLICATION. 3. LD.DR HAS BEEN HEARD AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). I.T.A. NOS.2323,2324,2325 & 2326/DEL./11 (A.YS. : 1998-99, 99-2000, 03-04 & 05-06) 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS JUST DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE EX-PARTE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CASE ON MERITS. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT CIT(A) COULD PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS EX-PARTE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE O F NOTICE OF HEARING, BUT HE NEEDS TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERITS WHEREAS I N THESE CASES SUCH PROCEDURE HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED. THEREFORE, WE CANNOT UPHOLD THE ORDE R OF CIT(A), BEING NOT LEGALLY CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED. AS SUCH WHILE ACCEPTING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER ON HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DEC IDE THE APPEALS AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 5. AS A RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE GET ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19.07.2012. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : JULY 19, 2012 SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A), MEERUT. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT