M/s. Tagros Chemicals India Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 488/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61115 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHRANA
• Assessee Lawyers: G STANLY
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 488 & 489/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S TAGROS CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., NO.72, RAJA ANNAMALAI BUILDING, JHAVER PLAZA, IV FLOOR, MARSHALLS ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600 008. PAN : AAACT2952K (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(1), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. STANLY, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. S. MOHRANA, C IT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.05.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, CHENNAI, REFUSING TO CONSIDER ITS APPEAL FOR NOT ENTERING APPEARANCE ON THE DATES OF HEARING AND ALSO FOR NOT SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS. AS PER THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LAW AIDED ONLY THE VIGILANT AND NOT ONE WHO SLEPT. APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 2 I.T.A. NOS. 488 & 489/MDS/12 488/MDS/2012 ORIGINATES ON ASSESSMENT DONE UNDER SE CTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT 'THE ACT'), WHEREAS, APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 489/MDS/2012 ORIGINAT ES FROM THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN ONE OF THESE C ASES, CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 11 DAYS AND THERE WAS NO CONDONATION PETITION. FURTHER, AS PER THE CIT(APPE ALS), ON THE DATES FOR HEARING OF BOTH THE APPEALS, THERE WAS NO APPEARANC E BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED. HE, THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAW AIDED ONLY THE VIGILANT, DISMISSED THE APP EALS FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 2. NOW BEFORE US, A.R., ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF CIT (APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT CIT(APPEALS) HAD NO POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEALS WITHOUT CONSIDERING ON MERITS. ACCORDING TO HIM, T HERE WAS NO DELAY INVOLVED SINCE THE APPEALS WERE FILED WITHIN 30 DAY S PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS. 3. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VIGILANT IN ENTERING AP PEARANCE AND GIVING ITS SUBMISSIONS ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING. IN SOFAR AS THE DELAY INVOLVED ON ONE OF THE CASES IS CONCERNED, WE FIND FROM THE FORM NO.35 3 I.T.A. NOS. 488 & 489/MDS/12 FILED BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THIS WAS WITHIN 30 D AYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER MENTIONED THEREIN. IN ANY CAS E, CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT HAVE DEALT WITH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERI TS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S QUESTNET ENTERPRISES IN DIA PRIVATE LIMITED V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NOS. 1821 & 1822/MDS/2011 HAD CONSID ERED A SIMILAR ISSUE. IN ITS ORDER DATED 18 TH JANUARY, 2012, THIS TRIBUNAL HELD AT PARA 4 AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS. APPEAL BEFORE CIT (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 246A OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ' THE ACT') IS A STATUTORY RIGHT GIVEN TO AN ASSESSEE. AS PER SUB -SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, WHICH PRESCRIBES THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY A CIT(APPEALS), AN ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS ) DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHOULD STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION TAKEN THEREON AND REASO NS FOR THE DECISION. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO POWER VESTED ON CIT(APPEALS) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF AN ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSEC UTION OR NON- APPEARANCE. HE HAS TO DEAL WITH THE CASE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN ANY CASE, HERE, ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2011 AND NOTHING WAS MENTIONED BY CIT(APPEALS) ON SUCH ADJOURNMENT PETITION. WE ARE , THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO CIT(A PPEALS) FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH FOR BOTH THE YEARS. WE, THERE FORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND R EMIT IT BACK TO HIM FOR CONSIDERATION DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W, AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRESENTING ITS CASE. 5. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY CO-OR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND HOLD THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS OB LIGED TO CONSIDER THE CASE ON MERITS AND COULD NOT DISMISS FOR WANT OF PR OSECUTION. WE, 4 I.T.A. NOS. 488 & 489/MDS/12 THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE APPEALS BACK TO HIM FOR CONSIDERATION DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 9 TH OF MAY, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 9 TH MAY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-III, CHENNAI (4) CIT, CHENNAI-I, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE