Super Industries, Baroda V. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Baroda

ITSSA 211/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2195 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SMITI SAMANT

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ IT(SS)A NO.210 TO 213/AHD/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2001-02 AND 2004-0 5 SUPER INDUSTRIES 2, GIDC, RANOLI DIST. BARODA 391 350. PAN : AAGFS 0779 J VS DCIT, CIR.2(2) BARODA. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA REVENUE BY : MRS.SMITI SAMANT, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 02/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/06/2016 / O R D E R THE PRESENT FOUR APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTA NCE OF ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A)-II, BARODA OF EVEN DATED I.E. 30.12.2009 FOR THE 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2001-02 AND 2004-05. 2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) EX PARTE . IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ISSUED NUMBER OF NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THEY WERE REMAINED UN- COMPLIED WITH. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI AJA Y MEHTA AND NEETA RATHOD WERE PARTNERS WHO WERE FACING PROBLEMS WITH THE BANK AND ARREST WARRANT WAS ISSUED AGAINST SHRI AJAY MEHTA. DUE TO THIS REASON, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROSECUTE ITS APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 3. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, AN D THE ASSESSEE IT(SS)A NO.210 TO 213/AHD/2013 (4 APPEALS) 2 SHOULD BE VIGILANT FOR CONDUCTING ITS INCOME-TAX PR OCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREVENTED FR OM PROSECUTING ITS APPEALS PROPERLY BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS CRIMINAL CASES BEING FACED BY SHRI AJAY MEH TA, ONE OF THE MAIN PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THERE MAY BE SOME NE GLIGENCE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, IF I WEIGH NEGLIGENCE VIS-- VIS THE PUNISHMENT, IN THE SHAPE OF TAX LIABILITY, THEN PUNISHMENT IS DISP ROPORTIONATE TO THE NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO HIS ARR EST. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS BE ING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROSECUTE ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, I ALLOW ALL THE APPEALS AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ADJUDICA TION. 5. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY ME WILL NOT IMPAIR OR I NJURE THE CASE OF THE AO AND WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFE NCE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND JUNE, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/06/2016