T.A.Taylor Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 571/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9000 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTHI KRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ' #, % &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.571/MDS/2016 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S T.A. TAYLOR PVT. LTD., C/O M/S SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, NEW NO.114 (OLD NO.248), ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AAACT 4165 G V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. JAYANTHI KRISHNAN, CIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 17.05.2016 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.06.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 11, CHEN NAI, DATED 19.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 I.T.A. NO.571/MDS/16 2. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEA L FOR NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO PARA 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE APP EAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 30.12.2015. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT BY A LETTER DATED 16.11.2015. THE CIT( APPEALS), WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT, OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. EVEN THOUGH HE OBSERVED THAT THE GROUNDS ARE DISPOSED ON MERIT, IN FACT, HE HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE AT ALL. AC CORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED BEF ORE HIM. THEREFORE, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR D ISPOSAL OF THE SAME ON MERIT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. JAYANTHI KRISHNAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT INSPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESS EE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) IS RIGHT IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT SERIOUS 3 I.T.A. NO.571/MDS/16 IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. ON A QUERY FROM THE BEN CH - IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL, CAN THE CIT(APPEALS) DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION , ESPECIALLY, WHEN THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS BEEN CONFERRED THE POWER TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT? THE LD. D.R. VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DISPOSED THE APPEAL ON M ERIT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR RECONSIDER ATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(APPEALS) POSTED THE APPEAL FOR FINAL HEARING ON 30.12.2015. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. S INCE LAST THREE, FOUR HEARINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED , THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS ) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GOING INTO T HE MERIT OF THE CASE. HE SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES, TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE POWER OF THE CIT(APPEAL S) IS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E PARLIAMENT HAS 4 I.T.A. NO.571/MDS/16 SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED THE POWER ON THE CIT(APPEALS ) TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS EXPECTE D TO EXAMINE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO MMITTED AN ERROR, HE HAS TO RECTIFY THE SAME BY ENHANCING THE ASSESSM ENT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT EXAMINED TH E ISSUE ON MERIT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ONEROUS RESPONSIBILITY CONFERRED ON THE CIT(APPEALS) BY THE PARLIAMENT, NAMELY, ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT, CANNOT BE DISOWN ED BY DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING ON MERIT. 5. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE APPEARED OR NOT, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS EXPECTED TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND EXAMINE THE SAME ON MERIT. THE CIT(APPEALS), BEING THE SEN IOR MOST OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT, HAS TO DISCHARGE HIS FUNCTION BY DISCUSSING THE MERIT OF THE CASE WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL. SINC E SUCH AN EXERCISE WAS NOT DONE BY THE CIT(APPEALS), THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RECON SIDERED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(AP PEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO HIS FILE. THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFTER CONSI DERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME, IN 5 I.T.A. NO.571/MDS/16 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FA ILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, IT IS OPEN TO THE CIT(APPEALS) TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE ASS ESSMENT RECORDS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD JUNE, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( ... ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 23 RD JUNE, 2016. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-10, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-3, CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.