IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 65/PNJ/2014 : (A.Y 2009 - 10) COLORCON ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT NO. M 14 TO M 18, VERNA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VERNA, GOA 403 722 (APPELLANT) PAN : AAACC2281Q VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, MARGAO, GOA. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : RHYTHM JOHARI, CA REVENUE BY : ANAND S. MARATHE, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/07/2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. ITA NO. 65/PNJ/2014 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF D ISPUTE R ESOLUTION P ANEL - III (DRP) IN OBJECTION NO. 28 DT. 22.11.2013. SHRI RHYTHM JOHARI, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ANAND S. MARATHE, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR REQUESTED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THA T THERE WAS CHANGE IN COUNSEL AND ADDITIONAL TIME WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE LD. AR WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY THE NEW COUNSEL THAT WAS BEING APPOINTED NOR HAS ANY VAKALATNAMA OF THE NEW COUNSEL BEEN FILED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. 2 ITA NO. 65/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) 3. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY PUT TO THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE LD. DR THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBSTANTIAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED DETAILED ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE DRP BUT THE DRP HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER, CONSEQUENTLY, WHY THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE DRP FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. THE LD. AR AGAIN REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT, HOWEVER, THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJ ECT TO THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE DRP FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AND PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS TO THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER IN FORM 35A SHOWS THAT DETAI LED ARGUMENT HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ISSUES RAISED. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE DRP DOES NOT GIVE REASONS AS TO WHY THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. ALL THAT THE DRP SAYS IS THAT THE DRP DOES NO T AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT WHY THE DRP DOES NOT AGREE HAS NOT COME OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE DRP. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE DRP FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AND FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/07/2015. S D / - (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 1 4 /07/ 201 5 *SSL* 3 ITA NO. 65/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 4 ITA NO. 65/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 14/07/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 14/07/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 1 5 /07/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 1 5 /07/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 1 5 /07/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/07/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 5 /07/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER