Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी. दुगा� राव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद� के सम� । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.529, 530 & 531/Chny/2019 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. EL Forge Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of 21E, A.R.K. Colony, Eldams Road, Vs. Income Tax, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAACE1706C] (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by Shri Arjunraj, C.A. for : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing 09.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, all dated 10.01.2019 relevant to the assessment years 2006-07, 2011-12 and 2012-13.
When these appeals were taken up for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in & 531/Chny/2019, while passing the appellate order, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for non-prosecution and submitted that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). In the appeal in also, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that even though exparte appellate order was passed, the ld. CIT(A) has given some partial relief and prayed that all these appeals may be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee can substantiate its case by furnishing supporting documents.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the appellate orders. On perusal of the appellate orders for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 [appeals in & 531/Chny/2019], we find that the ld. CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeals on the ground that the assessee has not appeared. The ld. CIT(A) has to pass the appellate order on merits and cannot dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits. Thus, we set aside the appellate orders for both the assessment years and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee for substantiating its claim.
4.1 So far as assessment year 2006-07 [appeal in ] is concerned, though the ld. CIT(A) has granted partial relief by passing exparte appellate order, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate its case in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order for the assessment year 2006-07 and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 23rd August, 2021 at Chennai.