Shafat Ahmad Shawl, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 826/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64380 (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: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

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.826/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) MR. SHAFAT AHMAD SHAWL, PROP. M/S. MASTER COLLECTIONS, F-60, PHASE II SPENCER PLAZA, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. PAN: AMXPS0918E VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-VIII , CHENNAI-34. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. N.DEVANATHAN 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)IX, CHENNAI DATED 30.01.2012. 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.826/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 30 TH JANUARY, 2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT AS MANY AS FIFTEEN OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON ANY OF THE DATES. 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 D ATES BEFORE HIM. THE CIT(A) HAD GRANTED FIFTEEN OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLEAD THE CASE. ON EACH DATE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN NEGLIGENT IN PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). NEVERTHELESS, THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT.LTD. REPORTED AS 38 ITR 320(DEL) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH CO URT IN ITA NO.826/MDS/2012 3 CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT., R EPORTED AS 223 ITR 480(MP). THE ACT DOES NOT CONFER ANY POWER ON THE CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. R ATHER, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS O F 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.