M/S. MADHUSUDAN FIBER GOODS (P) LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3814/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 June 2016AY 2006-079 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of its representative, especially when documentary evidence was available. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the lower authorities due to the non-appearance of its authorized representative. The representative attributed the non-appearance to personal problems and negligence, submitting an affidavit to support this claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be prejudiced by the ex-parte decision of the lower authorities due to the non-appearance of its representative, despite having supporting documentary evidence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

Date of Hearing : 15-06-2016 Date of Order : 15-06-2016

O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 29.4.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2006-07.

2. The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, no need to repeat here for the sake of convenience.

3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee draw my attention towards the order passed by the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) and stated that both the authorities have not given sufficient opportunity for substantiating its claim before them. He further stated that the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue against the assessee for non-cooperation on account of the Authorised Representative of the Assessee for which the Assessee should not be suffered. In support of his contention assessee has also filed an Affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar, CA Prop. M/s Anil Prahalad & Co. C-42m RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad dated 25.6.2014 in which Sh. Anil Kumar, CA has stated that he could not appear before the authorities below due to his personal problem and the authorities below has decided the issue against the assessee exparte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that due to the negligence of the Counsel, assessee should not be suffered and requested that issue in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. In support of his contention, he has cited the following case laws:-

- Mahaveerprasad Jain vs. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 331 (MP- High Court)

- ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Delhi decision dated 9.6.2011 in the case of Ayush Fincap Private Limited vs. ACIT.

3.1 Ld. Counsel of the assessee also filed the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 66 in which he has attached various types of documentary evidence supporting the claim of the assessee and stated that due to non-appearance, the issue in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. He undertakes to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and assured the Bench that he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and will cooperate in the appellate proceedings.

4. On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee and relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with me, especially the impugned order which has been decided against the assessee exparte. No doubt that the assessee remained non-cooperative before the authorities below. But the non- appearance occurred due to negligence on the part of the Authorised Representative of the Assessee, Sh. Anil Kumar, CA who has filed the Affidavit. The contents of the Affidavit are reproduced as under:-

“AFFIDAVIT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR, CA PROP. M/S ANIL PRAHALAD & CO., C-42, RDC, RAJNAGAR, GHAZIABAD IN THE MATTER OF : M/S MADHUSUDAN FIBRE GOODS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT AY 2006-07 TO 2008-09 I, Anil Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Prahlad Saran Gupta, R/o RDC

131, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad do hereby solemnly declare and state on oath as under:-

1.

That my aforesaid identification is correct and being

Auth. Rep. of the above assessee company is conversant with the facts of the above said case is competent to swear this affidavit.

2.

That, though I could not appear owing to my personal

problems but I did appear on the last date of hearing on 24.4.14 before Ld. CIT(A)-II, New Delhi alongwith power of attorney and WS etc. for one year AY 2006-07 and Page 4 of 9 sought one last adjournment for the preparation of other appeals for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 till 15th

May.

3.

That Ld. CIT(A) did not entertain the adjournment

applications and WS etc. for AY 2006-07 and staed that as the matter is connected for all the years hence all the matters can be heard together only.

4.

That, though nothing was taken on record but orally allowed time till 9th May, 2014 stated to come with full preparation for all the three appeals before 10th May,

2014 or otherwise ex-party orders will be passed after 9th may in all the appeals. 5. That, when I visited on 5th & 6th May, 2014 with full preparation for all the appeals than I was communicated that orders for all the three appeals are already passed in the April, 14 and orders are already under dispatch or dispatched.

6.

That though I failed to attend the matter in the above

circumstances but assessee has no role for the same who has full faith on me and even now asked to cooperate for 2nd appeal. So may God help him. Page 5 of 9

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →