VAMA APPARELS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT CEN CIR 42, MUMBAI

ITA 2398/MUM/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 239819914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACV3456A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2398/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant VAMA APPARELS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT CEN CIR 42, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 18-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 18-07-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 26-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI D.K.AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS.2398 TO 2401/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 TO 2007-08 VAMA APPARELS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. .. APPELLANT KANCHANJUNGA 72 PEDDAR ROAD MUMBAI-400 006 PA NO.AAACV 3456A VS DCIT CENT. CIRCLE 42 . RESPONDEN T AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: VIJAY MEHTA FOR THE APPELLANT SUBACHAN RAM FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R PER BENCH: 1. THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST COMMON ORDE R DATED 29.1.2010 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-38 MUMBAI IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSM ENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007- 08 RESPECTIVELY. 2. ONE OF THE COMMON GRIEVANCES RAISED IN ALL THESE AP PEALS IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEALS EXPARTE WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A NOS.2398 TO 2401/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 TO 2007-08 2 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS GRIEVANCE ONLY A FEW MATER IAL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON A FEW OCCASIONS BUT DUE TO MEDICAL COMPLICATION THAT THE DIRECTOR O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS STATED TO BE TRAVERSING THROUGH THE RELEVANT DETAILS COULD NOT BE OBTAINED AND ADJOURNMENTS HAD TO BE SOUGHT. ON 19.1.2010 I.E. TH E LAST SCHEDULED DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2001-02 TO 2007-08 INVOLVING SEVERAL COMMON GROUNDS CAME UP FOR HEARING. WHILE THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 WERE ADJOURNED THESE FOUR APPEALS APPARENTLY FOR WANT OF SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR ADJ OURNMENT OF THESE FOUR CASES WERE DISPOSED OF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US INTER ALIA ON THE ISSUE THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SO PASSED THE ORDER EXPARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BON AFIDE IMPRESSION THAT SINCE ALL THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-0 2 TO 2007-08 WERE FIXED FOR HEARING TOGETHER AND AFTER SOME HEARINGS FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 THE HEARING OF ALL THE APPEALS WAS ADJOURNE D BY THE CIT(A). IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE APPEALS WERE FIXED ON THE SAME DATE BEFORE THE SAME AUTHORITY AND WHEN THREE OF THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO LATER D ATE I.E. 11.2.2010 THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON FOR THE CIT(A) TO COME TO THE CONCLUSI ON THAT THE REMAINING FOUR APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ADJOURNMENT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ARGUING THE MATTER ON MERITS AND FULLY COOPER ATING FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS FOR SOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IT IS CLEARLY UN REASONABLE FOR THE CIT(A) TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COOPERATE FOR THE REMAINING YEARS. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GENUINE AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO FURNISH REQUISITE DETAILS FOR WANT OF WHICH THESE APPEALS COULD NOT BE DISPOSED OF ON THAT DAY. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT TH E DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS GOING THROUGH A DIFFICULT PERIOD SO FAR AS HIS HEALTH WAS CONCERNED AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THIS CONSTRAINT THAT THE REQUISITE INF ORMATION COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH AND INORDINATE DELAY IN COMPLYING WIT H REQUISITION TOOK PLACE. OUR ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 12 .2.2010 WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 2002-03 AND 2003-04 WHEREIN HE HAS DECIDED THE I.T.A NOS.2398 TO 2401/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 TO 2007-08 3 MATTER ON MERITS WITH REGARD TO THE REMAINING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. LEARNED COUNSEL INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28 TH DECEMBER 2010 FILED BY JAYA PATEL DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH STA TES AS FOLLOWS: I JAY PATEL OF MUMBAI INDIAN INHABITANT DO STATE ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS UNDER: 1. I SAY THAT I AM THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. VAMA APPARELS (I) PVT.LTD.(COMPANY) 2. I SAY THAT THE FIRST APPEALS OF THE COMPANY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2007-08 INVOLVING COMMON GROUNDS; AND THAT OF TH E DEPONENT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WERE FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A)-38 MUMBAI ON 19.1.2010 WHEN SHRI R.C.MAKADIA CA ASSISTED BY SHRI S URYAKANT ZAGADE ACCOUNTANT APPEARED. SHRI R.C.MAKADIA ARGUED THE A PPEAL OF THE DEPONENT AT LENGTH AND THEREAFTER THE SAID APPEAL WA S ADJOURNED FOR FURTHER HEARING. 3. I SAY THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEALS OF TH E COMPANY FOR A.YS 2001-02 TO 2007-08 WERE FIXED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL OF THE DEPONENT AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE ADJOURNMENT OF DEPONENTS APP EAL DUE TO THE TIME CONSUMING ARGUMENTS A BONAFIDE IMPRESSION WAS CARRIED T HAT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE COMPANY WERE ALSO ADJOURNED. I SAY THA T THE LD CIT(A) HAD ADJOURNED THE APPEALS OF THE COMPANY ONLY FOR A.YS 20 01-02 TO 2003-04 TO 11.2.2010. HOWEVER APPEALS FOR A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2 007-08 WERE DISMISSED BY EXPARTE ORDER THOUGH THE GROUNDS INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS WERE COMMON. 4. I SAY THAT WHEREAS THE LD CIT(A) HAD GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF IN THE APPEALS FOR A.Y.S 2001-02 TO 2003-04 THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RESULTED IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AS THE APPEALS FOR A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2007-08 INVOLVING IDENTICAL GROUNDS WERE REJECTED. 5. I STATE AND SUBMIT THAT WHATEVER STATED ABOVE IS TRUE T O THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 5. ON THE STRENGTH OF THESE ARGUMENTS LEARNED COUNSEL PRAYS THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION DENOVO ON MERITS. HE HOWEVER ADDS THAT WE SHOULD NOT ADJUDICATE THE M ATTER ON MERITS OURSELVES SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BYE-PASSED THE CHANNEL OF FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY AND THAT THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER. I.T.A NOS.2398 TO 2401/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 TO 2007-08 4 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATT ER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE MATTER AFRESH THE CIT(A) WILL DEAL WITH ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). A S THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WE NEED NOT DEAL WITH OTHER GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ESSENTIALLY DEAL WITH THE MERITS OF THE M ATTER. THESE GRIEVANCES ARE NOW RENDERED ACADEMIC. 8. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JULY 2011 SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 22 ND JULY 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 38 MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C-IV MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH F MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI