M/s Hotel Glacier Pvt. Ltd., Kullu V. ACIT, Mandi

ITA 341/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80926 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 341/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S HOTEL GLACIER PVT. LTD., VS. THE A.C.I.T., MANALI, DISTT. KULLU (H.P.). CIRCLE MANDI (H.P.). PAN: AAACG9038N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI JASPAL SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.10.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 24 .1.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED EX-PAR TE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) NOTED CERTAI N DATES ON WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR H EARING BY HIM. ONCE THE APPEAL WAS ALSO ADJOURNED ON THE RE QUEST OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ON THE DATE FIXED, NOBODY ATTENDED BEFORE HIM. THE CASE WAS LASTLY FIXED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON 18.1.2013 AND NO ONE ATTENDED BEFORE H IM. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ALSO PROCEEDED EX-PATE 2 AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 24.1.2013 DISMISSI NG HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MOVE D AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IN THE OFFICE OF THE LE ARNED CIT (APPEALS), SHIMLA ON 16.1.2013 EXPLAINING THE REASO NS THAT THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY IS SITUATED AT DELHI AND RETURNS WERE ALSO FILED AT DELHI. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE MOVED FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION BEFORE THE CCIT. THE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE TO CCIT IS ALSO PLACED ON RECOR D. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNIT IES OF HEARING HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS ). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK BEFORE U S THAT IN CASE THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS), HE WOULD NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER AND WOULD NOT ASK THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) TO WAIT FOR ANY O UTCOME OF HIS TRANSFER APPLICATION. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD COOPERATE WITH THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN F INALIZATION OF THE APPEAL AT THE EARLIEST. ON THE OTHER HAND , THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT TH E LEVEL OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACE D ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE TO THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS) SEEKING TRANSFER OF HIS APPEAL OR ADJOURN THE APPEA L TILL THE ORDER OF THE CCIT. A REQUEST WAS MADE IN ADVANCE ON 3 16.1.2013, WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE STAMP OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AFFIXED ON THE SAID APPLICATION. THEREFORE, THE R EQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS. HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR FACT THAT THE REQUES T OF TRANSFER OF APPEAL HAS NO CONCERN WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LEA RNED CIT (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE NOT RAISED UN NECESSARY PRAYER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE ON MERITS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHIN TWO M ONTH FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER AND SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL AN D SHALL NOT RAISE ANY PLEA REGARDING PENDENCY OF HIS REQUEST FO R TRANSFER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 7 TH OCTOBER, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4