2014 (10) TMI 584 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment order u/s 144 Ex-parte order - Proper explanation made for non-appearance - Held that - Assessee submitted that an application for adjournment was sent on 16.7.2012 as the counsel was not in a position to appear on 18.7.2012, the date fixed in the appeal due to problem in the back whereas the Tribunal has wrongly recorded that no request for adjournment was made - The non-appearance of the counsel on 18.7.2012 was unintentional and beyond his control - the reason given for non-appearance of the counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal on the date fixed appears to be unintentional and bonafide thus, the order is to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The judgment begins with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay of 243 days in filing the appeal is condoned after considering the application supported by an affidavit. The Court disposes of the application accordingly.

2. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act was filed against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2002-03. The appellant had initially filed the return of income declaring an amount, but the Assessing Officer assessed the income at a different figure, leading to a demand notice. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed the appeals, and a miscellaneous application for recall was also rejected. The appellant's counsel had requested an adjournment due to unavoidable circumstances, which the Tribunal had wrongly recorded as not made. The Court, after hearing both parties, set aside the previous orders and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and passing a speaking order.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the application under the Limitation Act and the appeal under the Income Tax Act, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its outcome.