VISION CORPORATION LTD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Vision Corporation Ltd. (assessee), filed a Special Civil Application challenging an order dated 13/09/2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, which dismissed its Miscellaneous Application No.16/Rajkot/2013. This application was filed to set aside an earlier ex-parte order dated 15/04/2013 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.48/Rajkot/2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The original appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to the absence of the assessee or its advocate. The High Court granted leave to amend the petition to challenge the ex-parte order directly. The revenue did not object to a reasoned order allowing the petition.

Held

The High Court allowed the Special Civil Application. It held that in the given facts and circumstances, and considering the period between the ex-parte order and the Miscellaneous Application, there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee for not being present. The Court was of the opinion that granting one additional opportunity to the petitioner to submit its case on merits, upon imposing reasonable costs, would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13/09/2013 dismissing the Miscellaneous Application and the original ex-parte order dated 15/04/2013 dismissing the appeal were quashed and set aside. The appeal was restored to the file of the learned ITAT, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 5,000/- with the Registry of the High Court within one week. The ITAT was directed to decide and dispose of the appeal on its own merits after the deposit receipt was produced. The petitioner's representative assured cooperation for early disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the assessee's Miscellaneous Application, thereby refusing to set aside the ex-parte order dismissing the appeal, and consequently not hearing the appeal on merits, under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the ITAT Rules? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ex-parte dismissal of its appeal was erroneous and that its subsequent Miscellaneous Application to set aside the ex-parte order should have been allowed. The assessee contended that there was no mala fide intention for its absence and sought an opportunity to present its case on merits. Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated that it did not object to a reasoned order allowing the petition and restoring the matter to the ITAT for fresh adjudication on merits.