Madhubala, CHENNAI v. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 231/CHNY/2012 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 23121714 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAFPJ9250N
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 231/CHNY/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Madhubala, CHENNAI
Respondent ACIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-03-2012
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 03-02-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 225 226 227 & 228/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2007-08) SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN 18 KESAVA IYER STREET CHENNAI - 600 003. PAN : AAFPJ9250N (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(3) CHENNAI - 600 034 . (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 229 230 & 231/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2007-08) SMT. MADHUBALA 18 KESAVA IYER STREET CHENNAI - 600 003. PAN : AAKPM1125C (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(3) CHENNAI - 600 034 . (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. MOHRANA CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.03.2012 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE FILED WITH A D ELAY OF 89 DAYS. TWO SEPARATE PETITIONS FOR CONDONATION HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE Y WERE DISTURBED BY I.T.A. NOS. 225 TO 231/MDS/12 2 THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BEING FACED BY THEM AND TH ERE WAS ARREST WARRANT AGAINST THE FIRST ASSESSEE WHICH CAUSED MEN TAL STRESS. WE FIND THAT THE REASON SHOWN IS SATISFACTORY AND THE DELAY IS CONDONED. APPEALS ARE ADMITTED. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE A PPEALS IS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD DISMISSED THEIR APPEALS FOR A REASON THAT ASSESSEES DID NOT ENTER APPEARANCE ON THE DATES OF POSTINGS FOR HEARING. 3. LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD NO POWER TO DISMISS APPEALS FILED BEFORE HIM FOR NON-PROSECUTIO N BUT HE HAD TO DEAL SUCH APPEALS ON MERITS. 4. PER CONTRA LEARNED D.R. FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT TH E APPEALS HAD TO BE RESTORED BACK TO LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 5. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD NOT ADJUDICATE D THE ISSUES ON MERITS BUT HAD DISMISSED IT FOR NON-PROSECUTION. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEES MIGHT HAVE BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO ENTE R APPEARANCE BUT THEY HAD FAILED TO DO SO. NEVERTHELESS WE FI ND THAT THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S QUESTNET ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NOS. 1821 & I.T.A. NOS. 225 TO 231/MDS/12 3 1822/MDS/2011 HAD CONSIDERED A SIMILAR ISSUE. IN I TS ORDER DATED 18 TH JANUARY 2012 THIS TRIBUNAL HELD AT PARA 4 AS UND ER:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS. APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 246A OF INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') IS A STATUTORY RIGHT GIVEN TO AN A SSESSEE. AS PER SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT WHICH PR ESCRIBES THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY A CIT(APPEALS) AN ORDE R OF CIT(APPEALS) DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL SHALL BE IN WR ITING AND SHOULD STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION THE DECISION TA KEN THEREON AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION. IN OTHER WORDS THER E IS NO POWER VESTED ON CIT(APPEALS) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF AN ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION OR NON-APPEARANCE. HE HAS TO DEAL WITH THE CASE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN ANY CASE HER E ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON 28 TH OCTOBER 2011 AND NOTHING WAS MENTIONED BY CIT(APPEALS) ON SUCH ADJO URNMENT PETITION. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT T HE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO CIT(APPEALS) FOR CONSIDERATION AFRES H FOR BOTH THE YEARS. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF C IT(APPEALS) FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND REMIT IT BACK TO HIM FOR CON SIDERATION DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRESENTING ITS CASE. 6. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY CO-OR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND HOLD THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS OBLIGED TO CONSIDER THE CASE ON MERITS AND COULD NOT DISMISS F OR WANT OF PROSECUTION. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(AP PEALS) AND REMIT THE APPEALS BACK TO HIM FOR CONSIDERATION DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES FOR P RESENTING THEIR CASES. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSE ES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NOS. 225 TO 231/MDS/12 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 29 TH MARCH 2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 29 TH MARCH 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANTS (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-I CHENNAI (4) CIT CENTRAL-IV CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE