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. NO. 694/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD., HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, CORPORATE BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR, NO.29, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : AAECS5152A (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(4), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. VASUDEVAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY PUNGLIA, J CIT DATE OF HEARING : 29.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BELATEDLY FOR 91 DAYS. IN THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, REASONS SHOWN ARE JUSTIFIABLE AND THEREFORE, DELAY IS CONDONED. 2. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DISM ISSED ITS APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS. AS PER THE 2 I.T.A. NO. 694/MDS/12 ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT HAVE DISPOSED THE APPEAL EXPARTE BUT, HAD TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 3. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. NO DOUBT, ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN FIVE CHANCES FOR PRESENTI NG ITS CASE. ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR POSITIVELY. BUT, NEV ERTHELESS, WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S QUESTNET ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NOS. 1821 & 1822/MDS/2011 HAD CONSIDERED A SIMILAR ISSUE. IN I TS ORDER DATED 18 TH JANUARY, 2012, THIS TRIBUNAL HELD AT PARA 4 AS UNDE R:- 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. 3 I.T.A. NO. 694/MDS/12 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, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO HIM FOR CONSIDERATION DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON TUESDAY, T HE 29 TH OF MAY, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 29 TH MAY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE