M/s. Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2918/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4177 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHALAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D, CHENNAI , . !' $%, ' $( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA NO.2918/MDS/2016 ' ' )' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 TAMILNADU PETRO PRODUCTS LTD., PB NO.9, MANALI EXPRESS HIGHWAY, MANALI, CHENNAI 600 068. [PAN: AAACT 1295M] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) %* + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE -.%* + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PATHALAVATH PEERYA, CIT / + 0 / DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2017 1) + 0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.06.2017 /O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL-2, BANGALORE (DRP FOR S HORT) DATED 05.03.2016, CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R/W S.144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 20 12-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL, IS IF THE LD. DRP OUGHT TO HAVE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CONDONED THE THREE D AY DELAY IN FILING THE OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE TO BE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DRAFT ORDER TO IT, BEFORE THE DRP. THE LD. DRP HAS 2 ITA NO.2918/MDS/2016 (A Y 2012-13) TAMILNADU PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. V. DY. CIT DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY ON THE GROUND OF WANT OF POWER FOR THE SAME UNDER THE INCOME TAX (DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL) RU LES, 2009, WHICH GOVERN ITS FUNCTIONING, INCLUDING PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY IT. 3. BEFORE US THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE MINOR DELAY OF THREE DAYS OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF TH E WRONG NOTING OF THE DATE BY THE COUNSEL, AND IS NOT REFLECTIVE OF ANY LACK O F EARNESTNESS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE OBJECTIONS. RELIANCE WAS PLA CED BY HIM ON THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN TENOVA INDIA PVT. LTD. V. ASST. CIT (IN ITA NO.3477/MDS/2016 DATED 05.06.2017), PLACING A COPY OF THE SAME ON RE CORD. THE TRIBUNAL THEREIN, ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY, WHICH WAS AGAIN FOR THREE DAYS, CONDONED THE SAME AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE DRP FOR ADJUDICATING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION ON MERITS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) WOULD RESPOND BY STATING THAT T HE REASON FOR THE DELAY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT BY EITHER THE ASSESSE E OR ITS COUNSEL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. NO DOUBT THE REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED PREFER ABLY PER A SWORN AFFIDAVIT OR AT LEAST IN WRITING UNDER SIGNATURE. S O, HOWEVER, WE ARE WONT TO GIVE EQUAL CREDENCE TO THE STATEMENT AT BAR BY THE LD. A R. THE DELAY IS FOR A SMALL PERIOD AND COULD HAVE OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF SOME M ISUNDERSTANDING. IT, IN FACT, CONFIRMS THE EARNESTNESS ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DRP. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE ARE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, INCLINED TO CONDONE THE SAME. THE MATTER I S ACCORDINGLY RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. DRP, SETTING ASIDE ITS EARLIER ORDER, FOR DECIDING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS ON MERITS UPON ALLOWING DUE OPPORTUNITY FOR REPRESENTATION. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, ALSO DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE O RDER IN TENOVA INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT CONSIDE R IT NECESSARY AND 3 ITA NO.2918/MDS/2016 (A Y 2012-13) TAMILNADU PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. V. DY. CIT PROPER TO ADJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL I. E., BESIDES GD. 3, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON JUNE 29, 2017 AT CHENNAI . SD/- SD/- ( !' $% ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, JUNE 29, 2017. EDN 3 + -'045 65)0 /COPY TO: 1. %* /APPELLANT 2. -.%* /RESPONDENT 3. / 70 ( )/CIT(A) 4. / 70 /CIT 5. 5 89 -'0' /DR 6. 9 ' : /GF