C2M TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.-6(2), MUMBAI

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. This is a second round of the assessee before Tribunal. In the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 21.11.2008, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has directed the learned CIT(A) to pass the fresh order after giving an adequate opportunity to the assessee because the order was passed against ex-parte. Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy and passed the order dated 25.11.2010 by arriving at this conclusion that the appeal of the assessee is not liable to be admitted on account of non-furnishing the tax. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that now the controversy is quite clear in view of the law settled in [2012] 19 taxmann.com 154, High Court of Karnataka, Commissioner of Income Tax III Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh wherein it is held the even after the dismissal of the appeal if the tax is paid by the assessee then the appeal is liable to be admitted and decided on merit. Now coming to the instant case the assessee has submitted details of payment of tax for the A.Y.2002-03 at page 3 of the paper book, no doubt it is further required to be verified in accordance with law. The assessee has also filed the copy of challans which has been attached at page 4 to 9 of the paper book which speaks about the payment of the tax to the authority. In view of the above mentioned law passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Commissioner of Income Tax III Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh, we are of the view that when the assessee has paid the admitted tax