ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES K LTD., Kota V. ACIT, Kota

ITA 333/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99353 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 333 & 334/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (K) LTD., BAZAR NO. 1, RAMGANJ MANDI, KOTA. CUKE VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACCA 3549 F VIHYKFKHZ@ AP PELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 29/09/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/10/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH : BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AGAINS T THE ORDERS DATED 23/01/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A), AJM ER FOR A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05. 2. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31/03/2006 AND ON 27/12 /2006 ITA 333 & 334/JP/2012_ ASSOCIATED STONES INDUSTRIES (K) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIR CLE- 1, KOTA 2 RESPECTIVELY. AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEALS BEFORE THE LD CIT( A), AJMER WHICH FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AS ASSESSEE INDULGED IN REPEATED UNJUSTIFIED ADJOURNMENTS. LEFT WITH NO ALT ERNATIVE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS EX PARTE QUA TH E ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 3.0 IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO PERSONAL ATTENDANCE. HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 04-0 3- 2011, 29-03-2011, 21-11-2011, 23-12-2011 AND 19-01-2012. REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED ON 21 - 11-2011, 23-12-2011 AND 19-01-2012. THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON OTHER DATES. DESPITE BEING GIVEN FIVE DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES OVER A PERIOD OF NEARLY ONE YEAR, APPELLANT DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE EVERY WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS. THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 28-04-2006 AND IS ALMOST SIX YEARS OLD. FROM THE CONDUCT OF APPELL ANT, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT PURSUING T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE, DEC IDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED SECOND APPEALS BEFO RE ITAT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE ITAT ALSO CONSEQUENTLY VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05/12/2 014 ITAT DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS AGAIN IN LIMINE ON ACCOU NT OF NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF DELHI ITA 333 & 334/JP/2012_ ASSOCIATED STONES INDUSTRIES (K) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIR CLE- 1, KOTA 3 BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDI A (P) LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 22 3 ITR 480. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 05/1 2/2014, THE APPELLANT FILED M.A. APPLICATIONS NO. 06 & 07/JP/20 15 PRAYING FOR RECALLING THE SAID ORDER. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, BY ORDER DATED 05/12/2014 THE SAID EX PARTE ORDER DATED WAS RECALL ED. 5. LD. DR HAS FILED FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH IS OPPOSE D BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. BESIDES ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE OF BENCH DIRECTION FOR FILING CONCISE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL, LD. COUNSEL APOLOGIZED FOR THE SAME AND CONTENDS TH AT IN EFFECT EACH GROUND IS SEPARATE, THEREFORE, THE CONCISE GRO UNDS WERE NOT FILED. FURTHER LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT FOLLOWING A DDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS PROPOSED TO BE FILED:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE BY PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER, WITHOUT GIVING AN EFFECT IVE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IT IS PLEADED THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE DEPA RTMENTAL ADJOURNMENTS AS ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR SETTING ASIDE OF EX PARTE ORDER ITA 333 & 334/JP/2012_ ASSOCIATED STONES INDUSTRIES (K) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIR CLE- 1, KOTA 4 TO LD. CIT(A). LD. COUNSELS ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE CATEGORICAL FINDINGS AT PARA 3 OF THE LD CIT(A) ORDER DEMONSTRA TING THAT ASSESSEE WAS INDOLENT IN PURSUING ITS OWN APPEAL. I N RESPONSE, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS FILED LETTERS WITH THE OFFICE OF CIT(A) SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME FROM TIME TO TIME BUT BEC AUSE OF CERTAIN EXIGENCIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARI NG. HOWEVER IT IS CONCEDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS DOING HIS REGULAR BUS INESS AND ALSO ATTENDED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE OTHER YEARS . LD. AR HOWEVER COULD NOT GIVE ANY TENABLE JUSTIFICATION FO R THE APPARENT LAPSES ON ASSESSEES PART RESULTING IN WASTAGE OF T IME, ENERGY, CHOCKING THE ALREADY CLOGGED SYSTEM AND CONSEQUENT EX PARTE ORDER. LD. COUNSEL EARNESTLY PLEADED THAT NON SETTI NG ASIDE OF THE EX PARTE ORDER WILL LEAD TO IRREPARABLE LOSS TO ASS ESSEE AND ON MERITS SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND REMAND FROM LOWER AUTHORITIES RESULTING IN SEVERAL PROCEDURAL COMPLIC ATIONS. AS AN ALTERNATE ITS PLEADED THAT SUITABLY REASONABLE COST MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF RULE 32A FOR ASSESSEES LAPSES. ITA 333 & 334/JP/2012_ ASSOCIATED STONES INDUSTRIES (K) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIR CLE- 1, KOTA 5 7. IN REPLY LD. DR CONTENDS THAT LOOKING AT THE IND OLENT CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, EXEMPLARY COST MAY BE IMPOSED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER. 8. FROM PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY MR. PAWAN KUMAR SONI, GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS), IT IS NOTED T HAT SOME GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATE TO TEXTILE DIVISION WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN DEMERGED AND CURRENTLY IT IS PART OF THE RESULTANT COMPANY M/S VAST TEXTILE LTD. THE BENCH INQUIRED ABOUT THE INC OME TAX LIABILITY IN THIS REGARD WHICH ASSESSEE UNEQUIVOCAL LY REPLIED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE TWO YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE BENCH, THE TEXTILE DIVISION WAS PART OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W HICH SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE TO DISCHARGE CONSEQUENT TAX OBLIG ATIONS WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT APPEALS INCLUDING MAT TERS RELATING TO THE TEXTILE DIVISION. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER UNDERTAKE S THAT NO ADJOURNMENT WILL BE SOUGHT FROM LD. CIT(A) IF THE A PPEALS ARE SET ASIDE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPT ED ITS INDOLENT ITA 333 & 334/JP/2012_ ASSOCIATED STONES INDUSTRIES (K) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIR CLE- 1, KOTA 6 APPROACH IN PURSUING THE SUBJECT APPEALS DECIDED EX PARTE BY LD. CIT(A). LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WE FOUND SOME S UBSTANCE IN THE PRAYER OF THE LD AR. AN EXEMPLARY COST OF RS. 50,00 0/- (FIFTY THOUSAND) FOR EACH YEAR WAS PROPOSED BY THE BENCH, LD. COUNSEL HOWEVER PRAYED THAT PROPOSED COST WAS VERY HIGH AND MAKE IT FOR BOTH THE YEARS. LD. DR IS HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. IN C ONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND PLEA F OR LENIENCY IN IMPOSITION OF COST, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE TH E APPEALS IN QUESTION BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) WITH FOL LOWING DIRECTIONS:- (I) A COST OF RS. 50,000/- (FIFTY THOUSAND) IMPOSE D ON THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE APPEALS IN QUESTION. THE APPE ALS ARE SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD CIT(A) WHO SHA LL DECIDE THEM AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CHALLAN OF COST OF RS. 50,000/- SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIV ING THIS ORDER. ITA 333 & 334/JP/2012_ ASSOCIATED STONES INDUSTRIES (K) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIR CLE- 1, KOTA 7 (II) THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO FULLY COOPERATE IN THE TIMELY CONCLUSION OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE THE LD CIT(A) AND SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON ITS OWN. (III) A COPY OF THE PAPER-BOOK WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS BENCH SHOULD BE FILED WITH TH E OFFICE OF LD CIT(A) WITH A COPY TO THE AO. THE LD CIT(A) SHALL CONSIDER THE SAME AND IS AT LIBERTY TO PROCEED WITH THE APPEALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. T HE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE ANY FURTHER DOCUMENT ATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHICH THE LD CIT(A) SHALL CONSIDER AS PER LAW. (IV) CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT IN THE MATTER AND GIVEN THE QUANTUM OF REVENUES INVOLVED, THE LD CIT(A) SHALL DISPOSE OF THE MATTERS FOR BOTH THE YEARS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER RECEIVING THE COPY OF TH IS ORDER. ITA 333 & 334/JP/2012_ ASSOCIATED STONES INDUSTRIES (K) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIR CLE- 1, KOTA 8 10. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SET ASIDE AND REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) TO D ECIDE THEM AFRESH IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DIRECTIONS. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/10/2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH FOE FLAG ;KNO (R.P.TOLANI) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 09 TH OCTOBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (K) LTD. , KOTA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 333 & 334/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR