Tidewater Marine International Inc., New Delhi V. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Dehradun

MA 68/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8616 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHUTOSH JAIN
• Keywords: Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : H NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : H NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S.BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS. 68,69/DELHI/2012 (IN ITA NOS. 5289/DEL/12, 5773/DEL/11) ASSTT. YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 M/S. TIDEWATER MARINE INTERNATIONAL INC., C/O NANGIA & COMPANY, CA SUITE-4A, PLAZA M-6, JASOLA, NEW DELHI 110 025. AAACT7573Q VS. ADIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHARADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHUTOSH JAIN & AMIT ARORA, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.K. JAISWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-06-2012 ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL, AM: IN THIS CASE, H BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED A CO NSOLIDATED ORDER ON 6.3.2012, IN WHICH THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF NON- MA NOS. 68,69/DEL/12 2 PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSEE. PARAGRAPH NO. 2 OF THE ORDER, CONTAINING THE FACTS LEADING TO DISMISSAL, IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- 2. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.02.2012. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI AMIT ARORA, FILED A LETTER T HAT HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF COLLATING AND COLLECTING EVIDENCE TO BE FILED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUG HT AT ANY OTHER DATE CONVENIENT TO THE BENCH. THE CASE WAS AD JOURNED TO 6.3.2012, A DATE INTIMATED TO HIM IN THE OPEN COURT . HE ALSO FILED A LETTER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08 IS PENDING FOR DISPOSAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE TWO APPEALS MAY BE CONSOLIDATED. ACCORDINGLY, T HE APPEALS WERE CONSOLIDATED. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLE D FOR HEARING ON 6.3.2012, NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS ALSO BEEN FILED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEALS ARE LIKELY TO BE DISMISS ED IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKAJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE CASES, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S AS ABOVE REQUESTING FOR RECALLING THE ORDER SO THAT THE APPE ALS MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THE REASONS FOR RECALL ARE MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION AND ALSO IN THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SHRI AMIT ARORA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, ON 16.5.2012. THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT A RE AS UNDER:- 3. THAT I HAVE BEEN AUTHORISED THROUGH MY EMPLOYER TO REPRESENT M/S. TIDEWATER MARINE INTERNATIONAL INC. (THE ASSES SEE/APPELLANT) AS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE HONBLE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL. 4. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE T HE HONBLE C BENCH FOR HEARING ON 6.3.2012. 5. THAT I APPEARED BEFORE THE HONBLE C BENCH ON 6.3 .2012 FOR THE HEARING OF THE CAPTIONED APPEAL ALONGWITH VARIOUS O THER APPEALS INVOLVING IDENTICAL ISSUES. MA NOS. 68,69/DEL/12 3 6. THAT I WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE HONBLE C BENCH ON 6.3.2012 FOR THE HEARING AND AT THE REQUEST OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO 23.4.2 012. 7. THAT I WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE CAPTION ED APPEAL WAS ALSO ADJOURNED TO 23.4.2012. 3. THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE REPE ATED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US ON 15.6.2012. WE HOWEVER FIND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH STATES THAT THE COUNSEL APPE ARED BEFORE C BENCH ON 6.3.2012, WHEN THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.4 .2012. THE FACT IS THAT THE APPEALS WERE PENDING BEFORE H BENCH AND NOT C BENCH. THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 6.3.2012 BEFORE H BENCH, WHEN NONE APPEARED. TO OUR MIND, THE ERROR MAY BE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT SOME OTHER APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FIXE D BEFORE C BENCH ALSO ON 6.3.2012. IN ANY CASE THE LD. COUNSEL BEFOR E US NOW STATES THAT DUE CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL THE APPEALS ARE CONSOLIDATED IN C BENCH OR H BENCH. 4. LD. SR. DR OPPOSES THE APPLICATIONS ON THE GROUN D THAT THESE TWO APPEALS WERE FIXED BEFORE H BENCH AND WERE CALLED FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS BENCH. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NON-APPEARANCE I S ON ACCOUNT OF CONFUSION WHETHER THE APPEALS WERE FIXED BEFORE C BENCH OR H BENCH. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THINK IT FIT TO RECALL T HE ORDER SO THAT THE APPEALS MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. MA NOS. 68,69/DEL/12 4 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED. 6.1 THE APPEALS ARE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 9.8.2012. THIS DATE WAS COMMUNICATED TO BOTH THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF HEA RING IN THE OPEN COURT. THEREFORE, THEY WERE ALSO INFORMED THAT NOTI CE FOR HEARING ON 9.8.2012 WILL NOT BE ISSUED. SD/- SD/- [U.B.S. BEDI] [K.G. BANSAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT