Jyoti Paper Udyog Ltd., Nashik V. ACIT, Cir.-1, Nashik

ITA 830/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9757 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR RAJEEV HARIET
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 830/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) JYOTI PAPER UDYOG LTD., B-87, NICE SATPUR, NASHIK. .. APPELLANT PAN NO. AAACJ 7288E VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SRI S.N. DOSHI DEPARTMENT BY : DR. RAJEEV HARIET DATE OF HEARING : 09-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 -08-2012 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 15-10- 2010 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO DETERMINING THE I NCOME AT RS. 7,40,285/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS. 45,38,952/-. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 177 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTO R OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 24-09-07 AND TH EREAFTER THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKING ADJOURNMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME. DESPITE WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO STRIKE BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FO R ALMOST A YEAR THE ENTIRE SET UP 2 OF DAY-DO-DAY FUNCTIONING INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRAT IVE WORKING GOT DISTURBED OR DESTABILISED FOR WHICH THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL. AS REGARDS THE MERIT OF THE CASE HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 5. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. REFERRING TO THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS NARRATED THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY CASUAL IN HIS APPROACH AND DID NO T BOTHER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) DESPITE BEING GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. EVEN THERE IS DELAY IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE EXPLANATIO N GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DELAY SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE AF FIDAVIT AND THE DETAILS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THERE WAS A REASON ABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL IN TIME. WE, THEREFORE, CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICA TION. 7. NOW COMING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WE FIND TH E LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO HAS ANALYSED THE ADJ OURNMENTS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH ARE AS UNDER : HEARING HOW COMPLIED REASONS FOR ADJOURNMENT 24-09-2007 LETTER DATED 24-09-2007 GANESH FESTIVAL 15-05-2008 LETTER DATED 22-05-2008 LATE RECEIPT OF NOTICE 05-06-2008 LETTER DATED 05-06-2008 RUSH PERIOD OF N OTEBOOK SEASON 22-07-2008 LETTER DATED 22-07-2008 OUT OF TOWN 29-07-2008 A.R. ATTENDED NO REASON 29-08-2008 LETTER DATED 29-08-2008 NO REASON 09-09-2008 A LETTER FILED -- 3 20-10-2008 A.R. ATTENDED PART HEARD ADJ. TO 30-10-2 008 30-10-2008 NONE ATTENDED -- 11-11-2009 NO REPLY -- 14-10-2010 LETTER DATED 14-10-2010 NO REASON 8. FROM THE ABOVE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ALTHOUGH ADEQ UATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY CASUA L IN HIS APPROACH AND APPEARS TO BE NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT EXP LAIN THE NON-ATTENDANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 30-10-2008 AND 11-11-2009. UNDER THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO LEVY COST OF RS. 10,000/- (RUP EES TEN THOUSAND ONLY) ON THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. NEEDLESS T O SAY HE SHALL GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND COOPERATE IN COMPLETION OF THE HEARING. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G ITSELF, I.E. ON 09-08- 2012. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: THE 9 TH AUGUST 2012 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE 4