M/s Farrukhabad Investment ( India) Ltd, Farrukhabad V. ACIT 2(1), Farrukhabad

MA 10/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7632 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A. L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 10 & 11/AGRA/2011 (IN ITA NO. 164 & 165/AGRA/2009) ASST. YEAR : 2002-03 & 2004-05 FARRUKHABAD INVESTMENT (INDIA) LTD., VS. A.C.I.T ., 2(1), HOTEL HINDUSTAN BARPUR, FARRUKHABAD. FARRUKHABAD . (PAN : AACCT 0563 G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANURAG SINHA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 23.03.2012 ORDER PER BENCH : WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THRO UGH THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.03.2011. THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REVEALS THAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL DID NOT APPEAR BUT SENT AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION STATING THE REASON THAT HE, BEING PRO-OCCUPIED IN FILING THE TIME BARRING INCOME-TAX RETURNS, IS NOT IN A PO SITION TO ARGUE THE CASES. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT FIND THE REASONS TO BE PLAUSIBLE A ND ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA LS. HOWEVER, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE. M.A. NOS. 10 & 11/AGRA/2011 2 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING BOTH THE APPEALS. THE LD. DR HAS NOTHIN G TO SAY MUCH ON THE MATTER IN ISSUE. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADJOURNMENT IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT THAT THE COUNSEL IS PRE-OCCUPIED IN FILING THE TIME BARRING RETURNS OF INCOME, HAS ALREADY BEEN TURNED DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISP OSING OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE M ATTER, WHICH IS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN REJECTING THE ADJOURN MENT APPLICATION, CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF REVIEW IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON. EVEN OTHERWISE, SUCH A GROUND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY FOR RECALLIN G THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT EARLIER, THESE APPEALS WER E HEARD ON MERITS AND THEREAFTER, THE SAME WERE POSTED FOR FURTHER CLARIF ICATION IN THE MATTER. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS AND IN FACT, ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE M.A. NOS. 10 & 11/AGRA/2011 3 SECOND OCCASION, WHEN THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HE ARING, THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE APPEALS ON MERIT INSTEAD OF DISMIS SING THEM IN LIMINE. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN DECI DED ON MERIT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED TO THE AS SESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEALS ON MERIT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE RECALL THE EARLIER ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 29.03.2011 AND RESTORE BOTH THE APPEALS TO THEIR OR IGINAL NUMBERS. OFFICE IS DIRECTED TO FIX BOTH THE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON 08. 05.2012, FOR WHICH NO SEPARATE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED. WITH THESE OBSERVAT IONS, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.03.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY