Gomtesh Vidyapeeth, Belgaum V. Dy. CIT, Circle-2, Belgaum

MA 3/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2435 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M A NO . 03 /PNJ/ 2014 ARISING O UT OF ITA NO. 171/P NJ/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2000 - 01) M A NO. 04 /PNJ/ 2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.60/PNJ/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2001 - 02 ) GOMTESH VIDYAPEETH, HINDWADI, BELGAUM - 590 004, PAN: AAATG2956R (APPLICANT) VS. THE DY. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM. (RESPONDENT) APPLICA N T BY : SHRI SUNIL D. KALBURGI, ADV. RESPONDENT B Y : NONE. DATE OF HEARING: 04/07 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 /0 9 /2014 O R D E R PER: D.T.GARASIA (JM) THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT ON 30.1.2014 BEFORE THE BENCH. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT IN PERSON. THE BENCH DID NOT CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AND DISMISSED THE A PPEAL S . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS OLD ONE , AND THERE ARE CERTAIN LEGAL ISSUE S INVOLVED IN IT WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BENCH. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR RECAL LING THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT BUT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2 . M A NOS. 03 & 04/PNJ/2014 GOMTESH VIDYAPEETH VS. THE DCIT 3. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DISPOSED ON 2 8 .07.2011 AND APPEALS WERE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE . T HEREAFTER ON 14.08.2012 THE ORDER WAS RECALLED AND MATTER WAS ADJOURNED FOR 12.12.2012 , 29.01.2013, 19.3.2013, 1.5.2013, 13.6.2013 , 20.08. 2013, 29.09.2013 AND 26.11.2013. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT ON 30.01.2014. HAVING GONE THR OUGH THE RECORDS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT THOUGH THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS RECALLED THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE UPHOLD OUR ORDER PASSED ON 28.07.2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OF THIS APPEALS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE SE TWO APPEALS BY A SSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 22.9.2008 AND 15.10.2009 OF LEARNED CIT(A), BELGAUM. ASSESSEES COUNSEL SHRI S.D. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE MAKES A STATEMENT THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE HANDS OF SHRI B.B. SWAMI HAD ACQUIRED FINALITY AS A RESULT OF ORDER BY INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IT HAS THEREFORE BEEN CONTENDED BY HIM THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN BRINGING TO TAX THE SAME INCOME ON SUBSTANTIVE BAS IS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01. CONSEQUENT DECISION TO TAX THE INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ALSO THUS BECOMES ERRONE O US. 2. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL AT BAR, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FACT WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOME THAT HAS BEEN STATEDLY ASSESSED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI B.B. SWAMI AS A RESULT OF THE ORDER BY INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, FOR ANY REMAINDER AMOUNT, THE FACTS SH ALL HAVE TO BE APPRAISED AFRESH AND DECISION TAKEN DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PARTIES. 3 . M A NOS. 03 & 04/PNJ/2014 GOMTESH VIDYAPEETH VS. THE DCIT WE ALLOW THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AS THE ORDER PRONOUNCEMENT THE OPEN COURT ON 28.07.2011. 5 . IN THE RESULT , M . A IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOU NC E MENT IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 .0 9 .2014. S D / - S D / - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 3 0 . 9 .2014. P.S. - *PK* COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER