M/s. RBF Nidhi Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 50/CHNY/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5202 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RUPA J THARAYIL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH B : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] M.A.NOS. 47 TO 51/MDS/2008 [ARISING OUT OF I .T.A NOS.629/MDS/2001 & 1636/MDS/ 2002 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1997-98 AND 1996-96 INTEREST TAX APPEAL NOS. 117/MDS/2002, 162 & 163/MD S/2003 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1997-98 TO 1999-2000] M/S RBF NIDHI LTD 8, WEST COTT ROAD ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI 600 014 VS THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(3) CHENNAI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SMT RUPA J. THARAYIL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JM: THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16.11.2007. THE APPLI CANT IS A COMPANY IN RESPECT OF WHICH CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING B EFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS, WHO HAD DIRECTE D FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO TAKE OVER THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY. PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER, THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TOOK OVER THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY AND THE MANAGEMENT. IT I S STATED IN PARA 3 OF THE APPLICATION THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT MADE AN ORDER DATED 21.8.2007 ON APPLICATION NO.1278 OF 2006 AS UNDER: M.A 47 TO 51/08 :- 2 -: ACCORDINGLY, THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AS WELL AS T HE COMMITTEE SHALL ACT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: (I) THE COMMITTEE SHALL CONTINUE TO PROCESS THE PENDING CASE AGAINST THE NIDHI IN LIQUIDATION IN ANY FORUM BY ENGAGING THE COUNSEL OF THEIR CHOICE. (II) THE COMMITTEE SHALL CONTINUE TO PAY THE SALARIES OF THE EMPLOYEES AND INCUR INCIDENTAL AND OTHER EXPENSES FOR DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION. (III) DISPOSE OF CAPITAL ASSETS TO BE DONE ONLY BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WHO WILL GET VALUATION DONE BY ITCOT OR ANY OTHER AGENCIES AS APPROVED BY THIS COURT. (IV) OTHER STATUTORY DUES TO THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER EXPENSES SHALL BE PAID BY THE COMMITTEE DIRECTLY. (V) FOR ANY OTHER CLARIFICATIONS THE OFFICIAL LIQUI DATOR AS WELL AS THE COMMITTEE SHALL APPROACH THE COURT AND GET APPROPRIATE ORDERS. (VI) WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS THIS APPLICATION IS DISPOSED OF .' 2. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SENT A NOTICE TO THE OFFICIAL L IQUIDATOR BUT THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, DID NOT COME PRESENT ON THE DATE(S) OF HEARING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, BUT O N SOME OF THE DATES, ASSESSEES COUNSEL APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS . SINCE THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, DESPITE SERVICE, DID NOT COME PRESENT AND LOT OF ADJOURNMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN, THE TRIBUNAL THOUGHT IT JUSTIFIED TO DISMISS THE APPEALS WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT SU BSEQUENTLY AFTER SHOWING GOOD REASONS, THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE THE LIBERTY TO SEEK RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS IF IT SO DEEM FIT. NOW , IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS KEEN AND INTERESTED IN PURSUI NG THE APPEALS AND M.A 47 TO 51/08 :- 3 -: WAS ALSO PURSUING EARLIER AND THE MATTER WAS BEING ADJOURNED ONLY TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. AC CORDING TO THIS PETITION, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS DEMARCATED THE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT BETWEEN THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT. SINCE THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE LEGAL PR OCEEDINGS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, THE PRES ENCE OF OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR IS NOT OBLIGATORY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PLEADED THAT THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT IS DESIROU S OF PURSUING THE APPEALS AND IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE PETITIONER WH O IS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO PURSUE THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . IN THE BACKDROP OF T HESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE RECALLED AND THE APPEALS SHOULD BE HEARD ON THEIR MERITS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR HAS ALSO NOT OBJECT ED TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ITSELF PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE RECALL OF THE ORDER AND RE STORATION OF THE APPEALS. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS PETITION, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DATED 16.11.2007. THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN GOOD AND REASONABLE CAUSE F OR NON- APPEARANCE. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE APPEALS TO T HEIR ORIGINAL M.A 47 TO 51/08 :- 4 -: NUMBER AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO RE-FIX THE APPEAL S FOR HEARING ON THEIR MERITS, IN DUE COURSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS A RE ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 .10.2010. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND OCTOBER,2010 RD COPY TO: APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR