Sh. Sanjeev Kpoor, New Delhi V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Srinagar

ITA 442/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0593 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K K MEHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.442(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 PAN :ADCPK6729M SH. SANJEEV KAPOOR, VS. DY.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, PROP. INDIAN SILK VASANT KUNJ, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. K.K. MEHRA, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH.T.P.SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 23/01/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:23/01/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 09.10.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-2010. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.442(ASR)/2012 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING SH. K.K. MEHRA, CA, THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT HE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK D ATED 10.01.2013 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY HIM AS REQUIRED UNDER THE I. T.A.T RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, THE PAPER BOOK IS DEFECTIVE ONE AND HE M AY BE PERMITTED TO SIGN ON THE PAPER BOOK AS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES. HE F URTHER STATED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPE ARED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DUE TO SHORT TIME GRANTED BY TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE M AY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO UNDE RTAKES THAT HE WILL COOPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY AND RECTIFY THE DEFECT AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHAORITY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ALONGWITH DEFECTIVE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSE E, WHICH IS NOT SIGNED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE ITA NO.442(ASR)/2012 3 OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ISSUED CERTAIN NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME. WE HAVE ALSO NOTI CED THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY FILED BY SH. K.K.MEHRA, CA BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS ALSO DEFECTIVE AND THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN RECTIFIED BY SH. MEHRA. EVE N BEFORE US, A DEFECTIVE PAPER BOOK HAS BEEN FILED WITHOUT ANY SIGNATURE BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCTION O F EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE AND THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT HE WILL COOPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS PRODUCE EV IDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH. WE ARE NOT COMMENTING UP ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE IS SUE IN DISPUTE TO THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASS ESSEE TO FULLY COOPERATIVE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY AND RECTIFY THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER. A COST OF RS.1000/- ITA NO.442(ASR)/2012 4 (RS. ONE THOUSAND ONLY) IS AWARDED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE FOR NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTING THE CASE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHAORITY AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THE CENTRAL GOVT . ACCOUNT AFTER OBTAINING CHALLAN FROM THE CONCERNED A.O. THE LD. CIT(A) WILL TAKE UP HEARING AFRESH AFTER ENSURING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF COST AWARDED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23RD JANUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23RD JANUARY, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. SANJEEV KAPOOR 2. THE DCIT, CIR.3, SRINAGAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU. 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.