Ecof Industries P Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 746/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8094 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.746/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) M/S. ECOF INDUSTRIES P. LTD., GEE GEE CRYSTAL, 8C & 8D, 8 TH FLOOR, 91, DR.RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(3), CHENNAI-600 034. PAN: AAACE2287Q ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 29 TH AUGUST 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS)- 6, CHENNAI DATED 15.02.2016 IN ITA NO.91/CIT(A)-6/ 2008-09 PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL; HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN R EFUSING 2 ITA NO.746/MDS/2016 TO ADMIT THE APPEAL UNDER SECTION 249(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY 130 DAYS. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON 4.1.2002 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,43,94,770/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 31 .03.2003 ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED AND REFUND OF RS.14,9 8,173/-. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 27.06.2003. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SEC TION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 19.03.2004. THEREAFTER THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITH RESPECT TO GRANTING OF DEPRECIAT ION ON ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AT 25% AS AGAINST 10% GRANTED B Y THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPEAL WAS FILED AGA INST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 15.07.2008. ON PERUSING THE APPEAL, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 130 DAYS IN FIL ING THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARN ED 3 ITA NO.746/MDS/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE REASO N FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE FREQU ENT TOUR OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ABROAD REGARDING BUSINESS COMMITMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS THEREFO RE REQUESTED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR CONDONING THE DELAY OF 130 DAYS. HOWE VER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECT ED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS ESTAB LISHED BEFORE HIM THAT THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY WAS ON TOUR ABROAD. FURTHER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OPINED THAT TH E OTHER DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE A ND THEREFORE THE REASON ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT S LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CANNOT BE ENTERTA INED. ACCORDINGLY HE REJECTED THE CONDONATION PETITION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 249(3) OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE EARLIER 4 ITA NO.746/MDS/2016 OCCASION AND PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL OF 130 DAYS MAY BE CONDONED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AN D REQUESTED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. EVEN BEF ORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT I TS ARGUMENT THAT THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WAS TOURING ABROAD DUE TO WHICH THE DELAY HAD OCCURRED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH MERIT IN THE ARG UMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPE AL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. WE ALSO DI RECT THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO-OPERATE WITH THE LEARNED 5 ITA NO.746/MDS/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS PROCEED INGS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE HIS ORDER FAILING WHICH THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHALL BE AT LI BERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER MERIT & LAW BASED ON THE AVAILABLE RECORDS BEFORE HIM. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF