M/s. Malladi Project Management Centre (P) Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 953/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61275 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.953/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S. MALLADI PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTRE (P) LTD., NO.9, GST ROAD, ST. THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI-600 016. V. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(3), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN : AAACM2412P) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N. BETGERI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18. 07.2012 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPE ALS)-IV, ITA NO.953 /MDS/2012 2 CHENNAI DATED 21-12-2011. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 7 GROUND S AND IN ONE OF THE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS VOLUNTAR ILY ADMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 72 DAYS IN FILING THE APPE AL, EVEN THOUGH FORM NO. 36 (9 TH COLUMN) SHOWED THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST AS 01- 03-2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY WHEREIN THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE FROM THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THEREFORE HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A). HOWEVER, HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE REGISTERED OFFIC E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SHIFTED TO NEW PREMISES ON 25-10-2008 SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO INTI MATE THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED CIT( A). THE HEARING NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT A COPY OF HEARING NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON THE COUNSEL AS MENTIONED I N FORM NO. 35. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT CAME TO THE N OTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DY. CIT ABOUT TH E DISMISSAL OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND HAD REQUESTED THE OFFI CE OF THE ITA NO.953 /MDS/2012 3 DY.CIT TO HAND OVER A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED BECAUSE THE DELAY WAS NEITHER WILFUL NOR WANTON BUT DUE TO THE BONA F IDE REASONS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. THE LEARNED DR HAD NO SERIOUS OBJECTION FOR THE DELAY. WE THEREFORE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFFIDAVIT, FIND THAT THE DELAY WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON. THERE IS A JUSTIFIED REASON FO R NON-FILING OF THE APPEAL IN TIME. WE, THEREFORE, CONDONE THE DEL AY OF 72 DAYS AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. SO FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE CASE ARE CONCERNED, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F MULTIPLAN INDIA P. LTD. (38 ITD 320). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MA Y BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO APPLY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA). HE OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. WE, THE REFORE, ITA NO.953 /MDS/2012 4 REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 18 TH OF JULY, 2012, AT CHENNAI.5 SD/- SD/- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) ( V.DURGA RAO ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 18 TH JULY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE