Shri Nagalingam Moorthy, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 825/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64378 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VENKATESH R

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.825/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) MR. NAGALINGAM MOORTHY, 77, 2 ND LINK ROAD, THIRUVALLUVAR NAGAR, ERUKANCHERI, CHENNAI-118. PAN: ALJPM2177N VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-XI, CHENNAI-34. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. VENKATESH R., CA RESPONDENT BY : MR. GURU BASHYAM, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 16 TH OCTOBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 TH OCTOBER, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)IV, CHENNAI DATED 18.08.2011. 2. THE COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A VERY GOOD CASE ON MERITS BUT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-APPEARANCE. HE FURTHER PLEA DED THAT ITA NO.825/MDS/2012 2 AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO P RESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE D.R. REPRESENTING THE DE PARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT AMPLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS IN HIS CASE BUT THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE DR CONTENDED THAT A P ERUSAL OF THE ORDER DATED 18 TH AUGUST, 2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT AS MANY AS THREE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED B Y THE CIT(A) BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON ANY OF THE DAT ES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE IM PUGNED ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR HIS A.R. HAS APPEARED IN ANY OF THE DATES BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT IN PURSUING TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). NEVERTHELESS, THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED AS 38 ITR 320(DEL) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MA DHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TU KOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT., REPORTED AS 223 ITR 480(MP). THE ACT DOES NOT CONFER ANY POWER ON THE CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE A PPEAL FOR ITA NO.825/MDS/2012 3 NON-PROSECUTION. RATHER THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DISP OSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO GRANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE TO PLEAD HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE FILE BACK TO THE CIT(A ) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 16 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH OCTOBER, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.