, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3300/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LIMITED, 63-A, NORTH PHASE, SIDCO, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI-600098 / VS. ACIT-10(3), MUMBAI ( !' # /ASSESSEE) ( $ / REVENUE) PAN. NO. AAB CA0725C % $& ' # ( / DATE OF HEARING : 09/12/2015 ' # ( / DATE OF ORDER: 09/12/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 09/03/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MANY GROUNDS BUT THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT IS THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT GIVING FURTHER OP PORTUNITY OF !' # ! / ASSESSEE BY MS. VASANTI PATEL $ ! / REVENUE BY SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LIMITED ITA NO.3300/MUM/2012 2 BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE CAUSING LOSS TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THERE IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. DURING HEARING, MS. VASANTI PATEL, LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE, ADVANCED ARGUMENTS, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL T O THE GROUND RAISED BY FURTHER INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE DULY SWORN BY SHRI KUMAR SRINIVASAN , DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. COUNSEL REITERATE D THE FACTUAL MATRIX MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. TH E CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT AND THE FACTUAL MATRIX MENTIONED IN TH E AFFIDAVIT IS THAT SHRI M.B. SHRIDHARAN IS A SENIOR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO WAS AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND HE, BEING, BASED IN CHENNA I COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) ON LATER DATES CAUSING INCONVENIENCE/INJU STICE TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED PRACTICALLY EX-PARTE ORDER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN, DEFENDED THE CO NCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO ARRANGE ANOTHER COUNSEL AND FURTHER TO REMAIN VIGILANT. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX AND WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERA TION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN PER MANDATE OF ARTICLE 26 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DUE TAXES CAN ONLY BE LEVIED /COLLECTED, THEREFORE, ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE REMAND THIS AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LIMITED ITA NO.3300/MUM/2012 3 APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, WITH FURT HER LIBERTY, TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAI MS, DECIDE THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFRESH. KEEPING IN V IEW, THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS DIRECTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS TO REMAIN VIGILANT IN FUTURE AND TO APPEAR BEFORE T HE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE RECEI PT OF THIS ORDER FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS AT LIBERTY TO DISPOSE OF TH E APPEAL ON MERIT EITHER ON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ON A LATER MUTUALLY AGREED DATE. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ONLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 09/12/2015 SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '!# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $!# /JUDICIAL MEMBER % & MUMBAI; * DATED : 09/12/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ,-. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LIMITED ITA NO.3300/MUM/2012 4 3. 1 1 % 2# ( , ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 1 1 % 2# / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 4$5 /# , 1 ,( 6 , % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ! 8& / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, 04,# /# //TRUE COPY// /! (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % & / ITAT, MUMBAI