NARENDRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

By way of these seven appeals, the assessee-appellant has challenged the correctness of the orders, all dated 11th April 2019, passed by the CIT(A)-9, Mumbai, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years2003-04 to 2009-10.

The assessee appellant has raised materially identical grounds, barring for difference in figures in some of these grounds, in all these appeals. So far as the first ground of appeal is concerned, however, this ground of appeal is exactly the same in all the appeals is the same, and is reproduced below for ready reference:

The issue in appeal lies in a rather narrow compass of material facts. This is second round of proceedings before us. The assessee before us is engaged in the business of manufacturing refined oil and vanasapati ghee. On 22nd October 2008, the assessee was subjected search and seizure operation, and, subsequently assessments were framed under section 153A. The assessee challenged these assessment orders in appeals before the CIT(A) but without any success. The consolidated order, dealing with all these appeals, so passed by the CIT(A) was then challenged before this Tribunal. Vide order dated 31st July 2015, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal had remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, with certain directions. The matter thus went back to the Assessing Officer, and, to give effect to the appeal effect, the Assessing Officer passed the appeal effect orders accordingly which did not satisfy the assessee again. The assessee challenged these appeal effect order before the CIT(A) but, rather than dealing with the grievance of the assessee appellant on merits, learned CIT(A) held these appeals to be non-maintainable before him. The appeals were thus summarily rejected. While so rejecting the appeals, learned CIT(A), inter alia, observed as follows:

The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeals before us.

We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.

To decide these appeals, it is enough to take note of the fact that, beyond any doubt or controversy, so far as the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Bombay High Court is concerned, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, giving effect to the directions of this Tribunal, like the orders before us today, are appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was so held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(1994) 202 ITR 375 (Bom)], wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, observed as follows:

The stand taken by the learned CIT(A), holding that the orders giving effect of the directions of this Tribunal are not appealable before the CIT(A), is thus wholly unsustainable in law. We reject the same. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have examined the appeal on merits. In this view of these discussions, and in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Ordered, accordingly.

As we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we have two quick points to make. The first point is that learned counsel for the assessee had painstakingly argued that de hors Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in Caltex Oil Refining (supra), in any event, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in the case of Paras Oil Mills (supra) is not even applicable on the facts of this case. We see no need to deal with these fine points for the simple reason that, given the fact that the matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of hearing of the early hearing petition itself, it is unreasonable to expect the learned Departmental Representative will be able to properly present departmental perspective on this aspect. That is anyway an academic issue in the present context. The second point is that we are anguished to note that the CIT(A) did not even put the appellants to notice about his intention to summarily reject the appeals as non-maintainable, and yet he proceeded to do so in complete violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice audi alteram partem i.e. no person shall be condemned unheard, and such a conduct cannot meet any judicial approval. The approach so adopted by the learned CIT(A), even if on account of an inadvertent mistake- which we are sure must be the case, also results in wholly avoidable delay in the dispute resolution process. To ensure that the assessee is not subjected to long wait for disposal of his appeals on merits, we also deem it fit and proper to direct the learned CIT(A) to dispose of these appeals in a time bound manner. We, therefore, direct the CIT(A) to hear the matter, on merits, expeditiously, and make sincere efforts to dispose of the remanded proceedings within six months of receipt of this order. to 3813/Mum/2019 Narendra Solvex Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT Assessment year: 2003-04to 2009-10 Page 5 of 6

As all the appeals are being remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the remaining grounds of appeals, which are grievances on merits, call for no adjudication. These grounds of appeals are infructuous and are dismissed as such.

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court today on the 30th day of September, 2019