Patel Beverages Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. ITO, Ward-4(2), Baroda

MA 248/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9405 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NOS.248 & 249/AHD/2018 (IN ITA NOS. 1736 & 1737/AHD/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/S. PATEL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., 505/2-3-4 GIDC, MAKARPURA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BARODA 390 010. VS. THE ITO, WARD 4(2), BARODA. [PAN NO. AADCP 6641 C] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURENDRA MODIANI, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 05/07/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/09/2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNALS ORDER DATE D 22.07.2016 IN ITA NOS.1736 & 1737/AHD/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) FOR ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED FOR NON PRO SECUTION APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE MULTIPLAN INDIAN PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 3 20. 2. FROM THE APPLICATION IT APPEARS THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPRESENT HIS CASE FOR THE REASO NS UNKNOWN TO HIM AS TO WHY HIS CONSULTANT NOT REPRESENTED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT SINCE HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING OF THE MATTER ON 22.07.2016. MORE SO, N O NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON HIM TO THAT EFFECT. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELL ANT THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED FOR NON - 2 - MA N OS.248 & 249/AHD/2018 (IN ITA NOS.1736 & 1737/A/12) PATEL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL PRIVATE LIMITE D COMPANY INCURRING LOSSES AND APPELLANT HAD ALSO NOT QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL TO AT TEND TO INCOME TAX MATTERS AND COULD NOT TAKEN STEPS IN DUE TIME. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE INSTANT APPLICATION F OR RECALLING OF THE ORDER HAS BEEN FILED AFTER THE EXPIRY PERIOD IN TERMS OF THE NOTIF ICATION ISSUED IN THIS RESPECT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LEARNED DR CONTENDED BEFORE US T HAT THE APPLICATION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE PRAYER FOR RECALLING IS, THUS, N OT ALLOWABLE. 3. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVA NT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN THE MATTER OF M.P. STEEL COR PORATION PASSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS HELD THAT THOUGH THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, BEING PROCEDURAL LAW, ARE TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY, YET IF A SHORTER PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS PROVIDED BY A LATER AMENDMENT TO A STATUTE, WHICH IS THOUGH PROCEDURAL IN ITS CHARACTER, IF IT AFFECTS VESTED RIGHTS ADVERSEL Y, IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS PROSPECTIVE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT O F THE MATTER AS SETTLED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE MATTER OF M.P. STEEL CORP ORATION (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT THE LAW OF LIMITATION PROVIDING A SHORTER PERIOD CANNOT CER TAINLY EXTINGUISH A VALUABLE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE ISSUE DECIDED ON MERIT. APART FROM THE TECHNICAL GROUND THE REASON SO FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH DELAY IN PREFERRING THE MISC. APPLICATION SEEMS TO BE GENUINE AND HENCE THE DELAY IS CONDONED. - 3 - MA N OS.248 & 249/AHD/2018 (IN ITA NOS.1736 & 1737/A/12) PATEL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 WE, THEREFORE, RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 22.07.2016. T HE APPEAL IS HEREBY RESTORED. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO SERVE THE APPEAL UPON THE A SSESSEE INFORMING THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25/09/2019 SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/09/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A). 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 16.09.2019. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 17.09.2019 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 26.09.2019 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER