P.Pushpalatha, Kancheepuram V. ITO, Kancheepuram

ITA 359/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64440 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAJASEKHARAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NOS. 142 & 143/MDS/2012 (IN I.T.A. NOS. 358 & 359/MDS/2012) & I.T.A. NOS. 358 & 359/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 2002-03 SMT. P. PUSHPALATHA, NO.41A, 3/5, VALLAL PACHAIYAPPAN STREET, KANCHIPURAM 631 501. PAN : AAHPP0820C (PETITIONER) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), KANCHIPURAM. (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI P. RAJASEKHARAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.10.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, ASSESSEE S EEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 28 TH JUNE, 2012 OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS PASSED EXPARTE. I.T.A. NOS. 142 & 143/MDS/12 2 2. WE FIND THE REASON SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT ENTERING APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING TO BE REASONABLE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, REINSTATE THE APPEALS AND TAKE IT UP FOR DISPOSAL. 3. APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE YEARS WERE DISMISSED BY CIT(APPEALS) BY HIS ORDERS DATED 22.12.2011 FOR A R EASON THAT DESPITE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN, ASSESSEE H AD NOT ENTERED APPEARANCE. LD. CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT ASSESSEE WA S NOT VIGILANT ENOUGH TO PURSUE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO HER, AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS. 4. LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT CIT(APPEALS) HAD NO POWERS TO DISMISS THE APPEALS IN LIMINE. 5. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN ANOTHER CHANCE, SINCE THERE WAS GROSS NEGLIGE NCE ON HER PART. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSEL. NO DOUBT, IT IS TRUE THAT DESPITE ABOUT 17 OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY LD. CIT(APPEALS), A SSESSEE HAD NOT CARED TO APPEAR AND JUSTIFY HER CASE. NEVERTHELESS , SECTION 250(6) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') MANDATES THAT CIT(APPEALS) I.T.A. NOS. 142 & 143/MDS/12 3 HAS TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL STATING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, DECISION THEREON AND REASONS FOR DECISION. IN OTHE R WORDS, HE HAS TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS CONSIDERING THE MERITS, IRRE SPECTIVE OF WHETHER ASSESSEE ENTERS APPEARANCE OR NOT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR BOTH THE A SSESSMENT YEARS AND REMIT THE APPEALS BACK TO HIM FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH AND DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY A SSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN ONE MORE CHANCE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS AS WELL AS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED, LAT TER FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, TH E 12 TH OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 12 TH OCTOBER, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT /D.R./GU ARD FILE