Tebma Shiypards Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 891/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90550 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K HEMALATHA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.891/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S TEBMA SHIPYARDS LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, NO.40, BAZULLAH ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AAACT 1281 B V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : MS. K. HEMALATHA, CA ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 11.06.2015 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.07.2015 / 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)-11, CHENNA I, DATED 16.03.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2 I.T.A. NO.891/MDS/15 2. MS. K. HEMALATHA, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT V. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (38 ITD 320). THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIP LAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE APPEAL WA S DEFECTIVE, THEREFORE, IT WAS DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. HOWEVER , IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT FOUND ANY DEFECT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), IT WILL NOT EMPOWER THE CIT(APPEALS) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS EXPECTED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE APPEAL. MOREOVER, IT IS A STATUTORY APPEAL FIL ED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS EXPEC TED TO DISPOSE THE SAME ON MERIT. IF AT ALL THERE IS ANY DEFECT, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE CIT(APPEALS) TO BRING IT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSES SEE BY WAY OF DEFECT MEMO AND AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY, THE CIT(APPEALS) MAY PASS AN ORDER. WHEN THE APPEAL IS FILED AND NO 3 I.T.A. NO.891/MDS/15 DEFECT IS POINTED OUT, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS EXPECTED TO DISPOSE THE SAME ON MERIT. THEREFORE, DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT SUSTA INABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO HIS FILE. THE CIT(APPEALS) IS DIR ECTED TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AND PASS A SPEA KING ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 3 RD JULY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 3 RD JULY, 2015. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-11, CHENNAI-34 4. 0 81 /CIT, CHENNAI-3, CHENNAI 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.