9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector, Mr Manoj Shah of the assessee and also affidavit of new CA, Mr. R R Mandali and hence keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to condone the delay of 458 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. We would at the same time like to place on record our un-happiness in the manner in which CA Sh Shankarlal Jain conducted himself professionally with the assessee company which led to the serious prejudice to the assessee as detailed in the affidavits of the Director of the assessee and new CA of the assessee , which professional conduct is not healthy for growth and development of profession of CA. We, accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called the Tribunal ) read as under:- 1. The learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in passing an ex parte order without giving true and correct opportunity to the appellant of being heard by way of rejecting the final request of adjournment for the hearing, which was fixed on 4-1-2011 / 11-1-2011. It is submitted that keeping in mind the view of principle of natural justice and giving fair opportunity to the appellant of being heard, the ex parte order passed by the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) be cancelled and he be directed to hear the appeal afresh considering the details filed with Application under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. It is submitted that Hon'ble Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee in its return of income filed on 23-11-2006 declared total taxable income of ₹ 27,98,330/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 22-11-2007 raising demand of ₹ 11,77,865/- . The assessee did not deposit any taxes by way of TDS, TCS, Advance Tax or self assessment tax while filing the return of income filed by the assessee despite the fact that assessee returned income of ₹ 27,98,330/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of PET preform and flexible laminated plastic films. Notices were issued u/s 143(2) of the Act on 27th September, 2007 which was returned un-served by the postal authorities. Several notices were thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable on record. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO by holding that the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment and as also during the appellate proceedings . It was also observed by learned CIT(A) that the assessee did not co-operated before the AO and the CIT(A) in proceedings for immediately preceding assessment year . The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee might have benefited by not attending the proceedings by non-appearing before the A.O. as well as ld. CIT(A) and additions made by the AO were confirmed/sustained by learned CIT(A) vide appellate order dated 20- 1-2011. 6. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 20-1-2011 passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed its second appeal before the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se before the authorities below. The assessee has also filed appeal late by 458 days for which application for condonation is filed by the assessee along with affidavit for condoning the delay is filed explaining the afore-stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld DR rely on the orders of the learned CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including the affidavit dated 21-06-2012 filed by the assessee s Director , Sh Manoj Shah and affidavit filed by new CA Sh R R Mandali dated 11-06-2012 of the assessee which are placed on record in file. We have observed that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not presenting appeal in tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he noncompliance/ non-attendance before the authorities below was mainly due to non co-operation from the CA , Mr Shankarlal Jain who despite being paid hefty fee did not appear before the authorities below causing great and serious prejudice to the assessee nor handed over the files and documents of the assessee which we have discussed in preceding para s also. In our considered view keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, substantial interest of justice will be best served in the instant case, if the matter s are set aside and restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue s afresh after considering the relevant evidences and explanations of the assessee . The ld. CIT(A) has power co-terminus with the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
