KARISHMA TRADING CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 5(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 8897/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3421 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . ! , '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 8897/MUM/2010 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 ./ I.T.A. NO. 8896/MUM/2010 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000 KARISHMA TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., C/O. UTTAM GALVA STEEL LTD., 69, P.DMELLO ROAD, CARNAC BUNDER, NEXT TO BOMBAY MERCANTILE BANK, MUMBAI - 400 009 % % % % / VS. THE ITO, WARD 5(2)(2), MUMBAI. ' '# ./ ( ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACK 1942N ( ') / APPELLANT ) .. ( *+') / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI K.GOPAL RESPONDENT BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR % 5 6# / DATE OF HEARING : 19/06/2013 7 & 5 6# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/06/2013 '8 / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH EY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-9, MUMBAI DATED 11/6/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 AND 1999-200 0. THE LEGAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL AND THEY READ AS UNDER: ./ I.T.A. NO. 8897 & 8896/MUM / 2010 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99& 1999-2000 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 11TH JUNE, 2010 IN BREACH OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER DATED 4TH JUNE, 2010 FILED ON 7TH JUNE, 2010. THUS, THE ORDER DATED 11TH JUNE, 2010 IS BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME MAY BE QUASHE D. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING BY LETTER DATED 07.06.2010. H ENCE, THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE LETTER DATED 07.06.2 010 IS BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED. 2. BOTH THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) ARE EX-PART E ORDERS. LD. CIT(A) HAS FIXED THESE APPEALS FOR HEARING ACCORDING TO T HE DIRECTION GIVEN BY ITAT. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED BY HIM ON 18/5/2010. AN A DJOURNMENT LETTER WAS FILED FOR THAT DATE ON THE GROUND THAT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS OUT OF STATION AND HE WILL BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDIN GS IN THE FIRST WEEK OF JUNE 2010. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJOURNED T HE APPEALS FOR 7/6/2010. AGAIN THE ASSESEE ON 4/6/2010, WHICH IS 3 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLIC ATION ON THE GROUND THAT VARIOUS DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS ARE BEING COMPILED A ND SUCH PROCESS WILL TAKE TIME. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED ENOUGH TIME TO FILE THE DETAILS AND THE AP PEAL IS OLD ONE AND NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED ON GIVING FURTHER AD JOURNMENT. IN THIS MANNER HE HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE US, IT IS THE MAIN C ASE OF LD. AR THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS BREACHED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTI CE IN NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERING ADJOURNMENT DATED 4/6/2010 FILED ON 7 /6/2010. IT IS THE FURTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED A LETTER DATED 7/6/2010 AND ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE SAID LETTER. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS SHOULD BE REST ORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE ALL THES E ISSUES AFTER GIVING A FRESH OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. A.R HA S ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI INDRAWADAN B. JOSHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT REPRE SENTING THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT HE IS WORKING IN T HE CAPACITY OF RETAINER OF ./ I.T.A. NO. 8897 & 8896/MUM / 2010 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99& 1999-2000 3 THE ASSESSEE AND HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR IN THE SE MATTERS AS PER POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY THEM. ON THE FIRST DATE OF HEARING HIS FATHER WAS NOT KEEPING WELL AND WAS ADMITTED IN ASIAN HEART INST ITUTE AT BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, FOR OPEN HEART SURGERY. HE WAS OPERATED ON 10/5/2010. HE WAS REQUIRED TO ACCOMPANY HIS FATHER FOR HIS POST SUR GERY CARE AT HOSPITAL AND RESIDENCE. THUS HE WAS NOT ABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ON THE APPOINTED DATE. AFTER RESUMING HIS OFFICE HE CALL ED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS FOR PREPARATION OF THE APPEALS AND THE ASSESSEE INFORME D THAT SOMETIME WILL BE NEEDED TO COMPILE THE DETAILS. ON 4/6/2010 AS RELE VANT RECORDS WERE NOT RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE AND LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER. THE DEFAULT OF NON-ATTENDANCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS B EYOND CONTROL AND THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE. 4. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BOT H THE PARTIES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE DEFAULT TO ATTEND HEARING ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE. IN T HE PRESENT CASE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT DILIGENT ABOUT HIS O BLIGATION TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING ADJOURN MENT APPLICATIONS WERE FILED. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER TO RESTORE THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE SAME AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING T HE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE BY TH E ASSESSEE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ON 13/08/2013. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4.1 AS WE HAVE RESTORED THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE O F LD. CIT(A), WE DO NO EXPRESS ANY OPINION ABOUT THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A ) ON MERITS AS ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED TO BE R E-ADJUDICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY LD. CIT(A). WITH THESE OBSE RVATIONS BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OF. ./ I.T.A. NO. 8897 & 8896/MUM / 2010 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99& 1999-2000 4 5. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE BOTH THES E APPEALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/06/2013 . '8 5 & #' 9 :%; 19/06//2013 5 < SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA) (I.P.BANSAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; :% DATED 19/06/2013 '8 '8 '8 '8 5 55 5 *6=> *6=> *6=> *6=> ?'>&6 ?'>&6 ?'>&6 ?'>&6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ') / THE APPELLANT 2. *+') / THE RESPONDENT. 3. @ ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. @ / CIT 5. >A< *6% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 *6 //TRUE COPY// D DD D / E E E E (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . % . .VM , SR. PS