Elnet Technologies Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT Company Circle IV(2), CHENNAI

ITA 801/CHNY/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5341 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2002
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! .#$#%, ' !( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.801/CHNY/2002 % *% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 M/S ELNET TECHNOLOGIES LTD., TS 140 BLOCK, 2 & 9 CPT ROAD, TARAMANI, CHENNAI - 600 113. PAN : 431-E V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 2 0 3' / DATE OF HEARING : 28.01.2019 45* 0 3' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.01.2019 / 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) XI, CHENN AI, DATED 19.03.2002 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2 I.T.A. NO.801/CHNY/02 2. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER DISPOSED OF BY AN ORDER DATED 07.04.2008. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE AP PEAL WAS TAKEN UP TODAY FOR FINAL DISPOSAL. 3. SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 211 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND THIS T RIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). ON APPEAL BY THE AS SESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE HIGH COURT CONDON ED THE DELAY OF 211 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEAL S) AND REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THIS TRIBUNAL WITH A DIRECTION TO TAKE A DECISION ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANY GROUND ON MERIT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL? THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VERY FAI RLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND ON MERI T BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ONLY G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS WITH REGARD TO CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 211 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT(APPEALS). ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAIS ED ANY 3 I.T.A. NO.801/CHNY/02 GROUND ON MERIT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE ONLY G ROUND IS WITH REGARD TO CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL IS EXPECTED TO D ISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT WITHOUT GROUNDS BEING RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE? THE LD.COUNSEL VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE GRO UND WAS NOT RAISED ON MERIT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNA L, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WI TH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON MERIT. 4. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE DELAY OF 211 DAYS IN FILI NG THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT CONDONED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) REFUSING THE DELAY OF 211 DAYS WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, ON APPEA L BY THE ASSESSEE, THE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THIS TR IBUNAL TO TAKE A DECISION ON MERIT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T RAISED ANY GROUND ON MERIT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ONLY ISS UE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS REGARDING LIMITATI ON FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). MOREOVER, THE CIT( APPEALS) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE APPEAL ON MERIT SINCE HE HAS REF USED TO CONDONE 4 I.T.A. NO.801/CHNY/02 THE DELAY. PROBABLY, THAT MAY BE THE REASON FOR NO T TAKING ANY GROUND BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BY THE ASSESSEE. WHATE VER IT MAY BE, THE REVENUE CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO SURPRISE BY TAKING UP THE MATTER ON MERIT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. MOREOVER, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUNDS ON MERIT, THE M ATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR DISPOSAL OF G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL SITUATION, THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS TO DIS POSE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE O RDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(AP PEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE ON MERIT AND TAKE THE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 I.T.A. NO.801/CHNY/02 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JANUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !.#$#% ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 28 TH JANUARY, 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-XI, CHENNAI-34 4. CIT, CHENNAI-1, CHENNAI-34 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =% > /GF.