Asiatic Colourchem Industries Ltd.,,, Ahmedabad v. The ACIT., Circle-3,, Ahmedabad

ITA 447/AHD/2007 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 44720514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AABCA6297R
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 447/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Asiatic Colourchem Industries Ltd.,,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The ACIT., Circle-3,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 02-04-2007
Date Of Final Hearing 19-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 19-08-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 31-01-2007
Judgment Text
I II IN THE INCOME N THE INCOME N THE INCOME N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH A AA A BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N NN N. .. .S. S.S. S.SAINI SAINI SAINI SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING :23 8 10 DRAFTED ON: 23-8-10 APPEAL NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR. 1) ITA NO.447/AHD/2007 2001-02 2) ITA NO.530/AHD/2007 1999-00 3) ITA NO.531/AHD/2007 2003-04 M/S. ASIATIC COLOURCHEM INDS. LTD. 1503 PHASE-1 G.I.D.C. ESTATE NARODA AHMEDABAD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 3 RD FLOOR JITENDRA CHAMBERS NEW RBI LANE AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA 6297 R (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. K. PATTEL. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R. K.DHANESTA D.R. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V AHMEDABAD DATED 8-11-2006. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AR E AS UNDER:- YOUR APPELLANT BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)V AHMEDABAD DATED 8 TH NOVEMBER 2006 IN AN APPEALS AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) DATED 26 TH MARCH 2004 BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD) RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD PRESENTS THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ON THE F OLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS: 1. THE O4RDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND ERRONEOUS ON FACTS. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT BE CANCELLED OR SUITABLY MODIFIED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HE LD NOW. - 2 - 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING IT AS INVALID ON AC COUNT OF THE FACT THAT FORM OF VERIFICATION IN APPEAL MEMO W AS NOT SIGNED EITHER BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OR ANY OF TH E DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS T HAT APPEAL CANNOT BE HELD AS INVALID IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT THE DIRECTOR WAS ABSENT. IN SUCH ABSENCE DULY AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAD SIGNED THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. THUS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVI SIONS OF LAW AND RULES AND THEREFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN ONE OF THE COURT CASE THAT MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL WHICH HAS BEEN INSTITUTED BY A DULY AUTHORIZE PERSON WHO ACTS ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGING PARTNER/PARTNER CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF PROVISION OF RULES. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE APPEAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE QUASHED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN INTEREST OF PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT H AVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF ONLY BREACH OF TECHNICAL NATURE. THE APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HEARD ONCE ON MERITS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE DIRECTED NOW. I T IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH A DIRECTION BE GIVEN NOW. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00 ARE A S UNDER:- YOUR APPELLANT BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V AHMEDABAD DATED 8 TH NOVEMBER 2006 IN AN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 20 TH AUGUST 2006 BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD PRESENTS THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ON THE FOLLOW ING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND ERRONEOUS ON FACTS. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT BE CANCELLED OR SUITABLY MODIFIED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING IT AS INVALID ON AC COUNT OF THE FACT THAT FORM OF VERIFICATION IN APPEAL MEMO W AS NOT SIGNED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OR ANY OF THE DIREC TORS OF - 3 - THE COMPANY YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT APPEAL CANN OT BE HELD AS INVALID IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DIR ECTOR WAS ABSENT. IN SUCH ABSENCE DULY AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE HAD SIGNED THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. THUS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D RULES AND THEREFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. IT HA S BEEN HELD IN ONE OF THE COURT CASE THAT MEMORANDUM OF AP PEAL WHICH HAS BEEN INSTITUTED BY A DULY AUTHORIZED PERS ON WHO ACTS ON BEHALF OF THE MAN AGING PARTNER/ PARTNE R CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIO NS OF RULES. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE APPEAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. IT IS SUBM ITTED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) BE QUASHED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT B E SO HELD NOW. 3. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN INTEREST OF PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT H AVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF ONLY BREACH OF TECHNICAL NATURE. THE APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HEARD ONCE ON MERITS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO DIRECTED NOW. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH A DIRECTION BE GIVEN NOW. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING THAT THE ONLY EFFECTIVE G ROUND OF APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0HHC AND NOT DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED DEDUCTION/ S. 80HHC AND THEREBY ALSO REDUCED PROFITS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA WAS ALS O REDUCED AND DISALLOWED. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED T HAT THE APPEAL BE REHEARD AND BOTH THE GROUNDS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80HHC AND UNDER SECTION 80IA BE CONSIDERED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO H ELD NOW. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING THAT APPELLANT HAS NO CAS E EVEN ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT WHI LE DECIDING ANY GROUND IN APPEAL APPELLANT SHOULD HAV E BEEN GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. BEFORE CO MING TO ANY ADVERSE CONCLUSION AND FINDING LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING OF APPEAL ON MERITS AN D THEN CAME TO ANY CONCLUSION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORDE R OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)BE - 4 - QUASHED AND APPEAL BE REHEARD AFRESH. IT IS SUBMITT ED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 ARE AS UNDER:- YOUR APPELLANT BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V AHMEDABAD DATED 8 TH NOVEWMBER 2006 IN AN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT DATED 24 TH MARCH 2006 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD PRESENTS THIS APPEAL AGAINS T THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND ERRONEOUS ON FACTS. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT BE CANCELLED OR SUIT ABLY MODIFIED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING IT AS INVALID O N ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS THAT FORM OF VERIFICATION IN APPEAL ME MO WAS NOT SIGNED EITHER BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OR ANY OF TH E DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS TH AT APPEAL CANNOT BE HELD AS INVALID IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTOR WAS ABSENT. IN SUCH ABSENCE DULY AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE HAD SIGNED THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. THUS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D RULES AND THEREFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN DISMISS ING THE APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN ONE OF THE COURT CASE T HAT MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL WHICH HAS BEEN INSTITUTED BY A DULY AUTHORIZED PERSON WHO ACTS ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGIN G PARTNER/ PARTNER CAN ALSO BE TAKEN AS SUBSTANTIAL C OMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF RULES. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES ABOVE APPEAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE QUASHED. IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 4. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN INTEREST OF PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT H AVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF ONLY BREACH OF TECHNICAL NATU RE. THE APPEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HEARD ONCE ON MERITS. IT IS SUBMITTED IT BE SO DIRECTED NOW. IT IS THEREFORE S UBMITTED THAT SUCH A DIRECTION BE GIVEN NOW. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING THAT THE ONLY EFFECTI VE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION10 -B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 10- - 5 - B AND THEREBY ALSO REDUCED PROFITS. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL BE REHEARD THE GROUNDS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10-B BE CONSIDERED. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING THAT APPELLANT HAS NO CASE EVEN ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION 10-B OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT WHILE DECIDING ANY GROU ND IN APPEAL APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN PROPER OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING. BEFORE COMING TO ANY ADVERSE CONCLUSION AND FINDING LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING OF APPEA L ON MERITS AND THEN CAME TO ANY CONCLUSION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THA T THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) BE QUASHED AND APPEAL BE REHEARD AFRESH. IT IS SUBMITT ED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) BECAUSE THE MEMORANDUM OF A PPEALS WERE SIGNED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND NOT BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LEARNED AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE DEFECT IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEALS AND EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANC ES IN WHICH SUCH DEFECT COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE PRAYED FOR GRANT OF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE SAID M ISTAKE AND UNDERTOOK TO RECTIFY THE SAID MISTAKE AND PRAYED TH AT APPEAL BE DECIDED ON MERITS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE DEFECT IS RE MOVED AND THE APPEALS ARE THEREAFTER DECIDED ON MERIT. IN THE A BOVE CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND RESTORE TH E APPEALS BACK TO HIS FILE. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO REMOVE THE DEFECT WITHIN 30- DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND IF THE DE FECT IS SO REMOVED THEN THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) SHALL DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERIT AFTER ALLOWING REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. - 6 - 5. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 TH AUGUST 2010 SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010 COMPILED AND COMPARED BY: PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-V AHMEDABAD. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 24-8-2010 -------------- ----- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 24-8-2010 ---- --------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 24-8-2010 ----------- -------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER ----------- ----- ------------------- JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S ---------------- -- ------------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---------------- --- ----------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ---------------- -------------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- --- ------------------