M/s. Enteeyes Paper & Board Mills P Ltd., CHENNAI V. Addl.CIT, Pondicherry

ITA 691/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7745 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 691 & 692/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2001-02 M/S ENTEEYES PAPER & BOARD MILLS PVT. LTD., KARASUR, KATTAPERIKUPPAM, PONDICHERRY 605 502. PAN : AACCE2562P (APPELLANT) V. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PONDICHERRY RANGE, PONDICHERRY. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY PUNGLIA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 29.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2012 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED ITS APPEALS BEFORE HIM EXPARTE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO IT. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ON THE APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE, CIT(APPEALS) HAD GRANTED OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING FO R NOT LESS THAN FIVE DAYS. EITHER ADJOURNMENT LETTERS WERE FILED OR THE RE WAS NO RESPONSE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS AND DISM ISSED SUCH CASE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 2 I.T.A. NOS. 691 & 692/MDS/12 3. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT CIT(APPEALS) HAD NO PO WER TO DECIDE THE CASE EXPARTE, BUT HAD TO DEAL WITH MERITS EVEN IF T HERE WAS NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, ACCORDING TO HIM, IF GIVEN ONE MORE CHANCE, ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTERING A PPEARANCE AND PRESENTING ITS CASE. 4. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF CIT(APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. NO DOUBT, THE CIT(APPEALS) GRANTED ATLEAST FIVE OPPORT UNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRESENTING ITS CASE. ASSESSEE HAD FAI LED TO APPEAR POSITIVELY. BUT, NEVERTHELESS, WE FIND THAT THE CO -ORDINATE 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 3 I.T.A. NOS. 691 & 692/MDS/12 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. 6. 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, 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. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON TUESDAY, T HE 29 TH OF MAY, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (CHALLANAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 29 TH MAY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)-XII, CHENNAI-3 4/ CIT, PONDICHERRY/D.R./GUARD FILE