9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 898 and 2899/ Mds/2016 respectively for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. 2. The assessee filed these appeals on the following substantial questions of law: "i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without going into the merits of the case ? And ii. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in exercising the power given under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in dismissing the appeal in limine without appreciating the scope of the aforesaid provisions that the same should be disposed of on merits ?" 3. We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to consider the same issue in the decision in the case of M/s.3M Electro and Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT, Pondicherry [TCA.Nos.353 of 2019 dated 02.7.2019] wherein we have held in paragraph 6 as follows : "Therefore, we are not convinced with the reason given by the assessee stating that they were not aware of the order passed by the Tribunal. Be that as it may, we find that the Tribunal has rejected and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. This could not have been done in the light of the various decisions on the point, the earliest of which was the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar reported in AIR 1969 SC 1068 which was followed in N.S.Mohan Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther decisions are (i) by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of N.S.Mohan Vs. ITAT, Chennai [reported in (2018) 94 taxmann.com 92 (Madras)]; (ii) by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Ritha Sabapathy Vs. DCIT [TCA. No.169 of 2019 dated 19.2.2019]; and (iii) by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanket Estate & Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (2013) 32 Taxmann. Com 342] wherein of the decision in the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd., was taken note of and it was held that the reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd., was erroneous, the operative portions of which read as follows : '24. When the Supreme Court decided the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contrary, it had consistently pursued the matters as it was having a direct bearing on the appeals of subsequent years. Even otherwise, what is the requirement of the law is of adjudication on merit even when either side or both the sides choose not to contest. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal only on the ground of non prosecution without adverting to the merits of the matter and therefore, we set aside the order impugned dated 04.8.2006 passed by the Tribunal and also remand the matter to the Tribunal to adjudicate the same on merits. Appeal is allowed accordingly.' 8. Yet another decision on the same point is the decision of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
