Regaliaa Realty Limited, (Formerly known as, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 933/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61206 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAMADITYA JT
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO.933/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 REGALIAA REALTY LIMITED [FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUDSUN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) LIMITED] REGALIAA HOUSE, A BLOCK, II FLOOR 138, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD CHENNAI -34 [PAN AACCS 9745B] VS THE ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(4) CHENNAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAMADITYA, JT. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 21-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-06-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IX, CHENNAI, DATED 29.2.2012. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS UNFAIR, UNJUST AND AGAINST THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. I.T.A.NO.933/12 :- 2 -: 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY WHICH WAS DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. 4) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT SINCE THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WERE SENT TO THE OLD ADDRESS, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE BY THE APPELLANT. 5) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 6) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS THEREFORE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS. 7) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS NOT TRANSFERRED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN VIEW OF THE COURT ORDER RESTRAINING THE SALE. 8) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT'S ACTION IN EXCLUDING THE TRANSACTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS UNFAIR, UNJUST AND LIABLE TO BE MODIFIED. 3. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A.NO.933/12 :- 3 -: 4. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIX ED FOR HEARING DURING THE PERIOD 6.1.2007 TO 29.12.2012. THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR TWELVE TIMES AND EXCEPT FOUR TIMES, THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND HIS LAST APPEARANCE WAS ON 9.2.2009; THEREAFTER NO ONE APPEARED FOR ALL THE NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED BY HIM. THE CIT(A), OBSERVING THAT AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTE RESTED IN PURSUING WITH THE APPEAL AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ON MERITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TA KEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS BEFORE MAKING THE ADDIT IONS TO THE RETURNED LOSS. 5. THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE PASSED ORDER ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED AND THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGH T ADJOURNMENT WHICH IS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. HOWEVE R, HE SUBMITTED THAT HE UNDERTAKES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FULFILL ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CIT(A) FOR DISPOSING OF THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHO ULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. I.T.A.NO.933/12 :- 4 -: 6. THE DR DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE A.R THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORI TY. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY SHOULD DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF M ATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PUT IN APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM SO THAT THE A SSESSEE IS ABLE TO MEET ITS CASE IN APPEAL BEFORE A HIGHER FORUM. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR LTD VS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-II [ 2011] 196 TAXMAN 423, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: BE IT NOTED, WHEN A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY DEALS WITH A LIST, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON ITS PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS THE HEART AND SO UL OF THE MATTER AND FURTHER , THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPRECIATION WHEN THE ORDER IS CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FORUM . NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER , SHALL KEEP IN MIND THE ORDER DATED 29TH NOVEMBER , 2010 WHEREIN WE HAD DIRECTED THAT THE PERIOD FROM T HE DATE OF FILING THE WRITE PETITION AND FOUR WEEKS AFTER ITS DISPOSAL SHALL STAND EXCLUDED , WHILE COMPUTING THE LIMITATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO PASS AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. I.T.A.NO.933/12 :- 5 -: 8. AS THE DR ALSO HAS NO OBJECTION IN GRANTING ONE MOR E OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECT ED TO FILE ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH IT WISHES TO RELY UPON BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS AND WHEN CALLED UPON TO DO SO. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND OF JUNE, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22 ND JUNE, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR