DCIT CEN CIR 33, V. ARCHANA SYNTEX P.LTD,

MA 244/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1301 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUMIKA VORA MANI JAIN
• Keywords: Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ! ' . / MA NO. 244/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7291/MUM/2011) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-33, MUMBAI / VS. ARCHANA SYNTEX PVT. LTD. RAGHUVANSHI MILL COMPOUND, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL (W), MUMBAI-400 013 $ ./% ./PAN/GIR NO. AADCA 2044 E APPLICANT : RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BHUMIKA VORA / MANI JAIN & ' ' ( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 13.12.2013 *+, ( ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12.2013 - / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION MOVED BY THE REVEN UE FOLLOWING THE DISMISSAL IN LIMINE OF ITS CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS O RDER U/S.254(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 19.02.2 013. 2.1 THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL AS THE SAME WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE EX FACIE IN VIEW OF THE GROUNDS RAISED NOT ARISING OUT OF T HE ORDERS BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2 MA NO. 244/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) DY. CIT VS. ARCHANA SYNTEX PVT. LTD. THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED FOR ABOUT 1 YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ITS HEARING, AND EVEN LISTED FOR HEARING ON TWO OCCASIONS PRIOR THERETO. DESPITE THE SAME, THE DEFECT HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED, AND EVEN ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NO A DJOURNMENT APPLICATION STOOD MOVED, AND THE MATTER CAME TO LIGHT ONLY AT THE TIME OF HE ARING, AND THAT TOO AT THE INSTANCE OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. SO, HOWEVER, A PROPER AUTHORIZATION, BEARING THE CORRECT GROUNDS, BEING O N FILE AND, FURTHER, THE GROUNDS ASSUMED INCLUDING ONE FOR LEAVE TO ADD NEW GROUND/S , THE REVENUE WAS ALLOWED LIBERTY TO PRESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF ITS APPEAL, IF SO DEEM ED FIT, ON PROPER GROUNDS. THE REVENUE HAS NOW MOVED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (M.A.), L ISTING THE RELEVANT GROUNDS IT PROPOSES TO ASSUME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, CLARIFYING THAT THERE HAD OCCURRED A MISTAKE IN THE RELEVANT FORM-36, AS WOULD BE APPARENT INASMUCH AS THE GROUNDS AS PER THE AUTHORIZATION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, I.E., THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL- 3, MUMBAI DATED 27.10.2011 (ON RECORD), BORE THE CO RRECT GROUNDS, I.E., ARISING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AND WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN STATED IN FORM NO.36. IT IS, ACCORDINGLY, PRAYED THAT ITS APPEAL BE RESTORED FOR BEING HEARD ON MERITS. 2.2 THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD RELY ON A RECENT ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. DELUX POLYMERS PVT. LTD . (IN MA NO.55/MUM/2013 DATED 18.10.2013), WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES TH E REVENUES APPLICATION WAS REJECTED AND A COST OF RS.1,000/- LEVIED, PLACING A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER ON RECORD. THE FACTS BEING SIMILAR, THE SAME VIEW WAS PRAYED FOR BEING A DOPTED IN THE INSTANT CASE AS WELL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS APPARENT FROM THE READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, WITH A LIBERTY TO PRESS FOR IT S RESTORATION BY CORRECTING THE DEFECT BY MOVING ON APPROPRIATE GROUNDS. AS SUCH, I N OUR CLEAR VIEW, THE REVENUE HAS A RIGHTFUL CLAIM FOR THE RESTORATION OF ITS APPEAL, I .E., IN TERMS OF THE SAID ORDER DISMISSING ITS APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED A FRESH FORM NO. 36, I.E., CONTAINING THE APPROPRIATE GROUNDS AS PER THE RELEVANT AUTHORIZATI ON. FURTHER, AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES 3 MA NO. 244/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) DY. CIT VS. ARCHANA SYNTEX PVT. LTD. RELIANCE ON THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF DELUX POLYMERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE SAME IS NOT RELEVANT AS, FIRSTLY, THE REVENUES APPLICATION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AND WHICH WE HAVE F OUND AS CONSISTENT THEREWITH. SECONDLY, IN THAT CASE EVEN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETIT ION WAS NOT PROPERLY MADE OUT, LEADING TO THE IMPOSITION OF COST BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT SO IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE RESTORATION OF THE REVE NUES APPEAL ON THE AFORESAID TERMS, ALSO FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEA L ON 27.01.2014 , BEFORE WHICH THE REVISED F / 36 SHALL BE CAUSED BY IT. NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEA RING SHALL BE SENT TO THE PARTIES; THE SAID DATE HAVING BEEN ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 13, 2013 SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ' MUMBAI; .' DATED : 13.12.2013 .'../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / $0 / THE APPELLANT-APPLICANT 2. 1$0 / THE RESPONDENT 3. & 2 ( / ) / THE CIT(A) 4. & 2 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 56 1 '7! , / ) 7!, , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 689 :' / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI