M/s. Mitsun Engineering , Baroda V. The ACIT, Circle-3, Baroda

ITA 2656/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0800 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.2656/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 M/S.MITSUN ENGINEERING FF-107, SILVER COIN SHRENIK PARK CHAR RASTA AKOTA, VADODARA 390 020. PAN : AAKFM 9520 D. VS ACIT, CIR.3 BARODA. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MILIN MEHTA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SATISH SOLANKI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08/08/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11/08/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A)-II, BARODA DATED 30.9.2013 FOR THE ASTT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.REPRESENTATIVES, I HAV E GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WOULD IN DICATE THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON ACC OUNT OF NON-PROSECUTION. A PERUSAL OF THE LD.CIT(A)S ORDER WOULD FURTHER IN DICATE THAT THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON ELEVEN OCCASIONS. ON TWO-THR EE OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED AND APPLIED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREAFT ER, THE LD.CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE , BECAUSE, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ITA NO.2656/AHD/2013 2 AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF DIARY MAINTAINED BY HIM, AND PLEADED THAT TWO-THREE APPEALS WERE LISTED ON EVERY OCCASIONS, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT LAST ONE WHEN ADJOURNMENT WAS APPLIED. 3. SUB-SECTION 6 OF SECTION 250 MANDATES THE CIT(A) TO CARVE OUT QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE AND RECORD REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSIONS ON THESE QUESTIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE LD.CIT(A)S ORDER WOUL D INDICATE THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT MADE REFERENCE TO ANY OF THE MATE RIAL ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE AO. HE SIMPLY MENTIONED THE AMOUNT DISPUTED IN FORM NO.35, AND THEREAFTER OBSERVED THAT NO CONTRARY MATERIAL WAS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. TO MY MIN D THIS CANNOT BE CALLED IN CONSONANCE TO SPIRIT OF THE SUB-SECTION 6 OF SECTIO N 250. THEREFORE, I ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ALL THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FO R FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH LD.CIT(A) A ND SUBMIT REQUISITE DETAILS. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11/08/2016