The ACIT, Circle-9, Surat V. Shri Punabhai K. Ribadia, Surat

MA 28/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4386 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P CHAUDHERY
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.28/AHD/2014 IN ./ ITA NO.807/AHD/2013 / ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-2009] ACIT, CIR.9 SURAT. VS PUNABHAI K. RIBADIA 11, KOHINOOR SOCIETY LAMBE HANUMAN ROAD, SURAT. PAN : ABAPR 5135 Q MA NO. 29/AHD/2014 IN ./ ITA NO.808/AHD/2013 / ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-2009] ACIT, CIR.9 SURAT. VS SHRI BHUPENDRA K. RIBADIA B-27, TRIKAM NAGAR-1 LAMBE HANUMAN ROAD SURAT. PAN : AALPR 2496 N ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. CHAUDHERY, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 03/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/06/2016 *+/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT TWO MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDERS O F THE TRIBUNAL DATED MA NO.28 AND 29/AHD/2013 2 23.7.2013. THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES IS VERBATIM. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF FACILITY, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE FINDING RECORDED IN THE CASE OF SHRI PUNABHA I K. RIBADIA. IT READS AS UNDER: 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ALSO, BOTH THESE GROUNDS WER E TAKEN BUT LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PASS ING AN EX- PARTE ORDER BY HOLDING THAT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINA BLE AS THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND NOT MAINTAINABLE A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. LD CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED TH E ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. THIS ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) DOE S NOT APPEAR TO BE REASONABLE. WE THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF NATU RAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEA L ON MERITS. 2. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE TIME BARRED. THE TRIB UNAL HAS DIRECTED THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERIT, BUT DID NOT RECORD ANY FINDING WHETHER DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN CONDONED OR NOT. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED APPARENT ERROR BY OVERLOOKING THESE FACTS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE C IT(A), IT MEANS THAT DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL WAS IMPLIEDLY CONDONE D. 3. ON DUE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT APPARENT ERROR HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL WHILE ADJUDICATING THESE APPEALS. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE I SSUE OF LIMITATION WHILE REMITTING THE APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A). THERE FORE, WE RECALL THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2013 IN BOTH THE APPEALS AND RESTO RE THEM TO THEIR ORIGINAL NUMBER. WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO LIST TH E APPEALS FOR HEARING MA NO.28 AND 29/AHD/2013 3 ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2016. BOTH PARTIES ARE INFORMED IN THE OP EN COURT, THEREFORE, NO FRESH NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD JUNE, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/06/2016