9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Chartered Accountant. (iii) The CIT(A) should have noted that not only an ad hoc, notional and perverse addition of a large sum was made but was also followed by a penalty notice for concealment and in such a grave situation no appellant would seek withdrawal of appeal. (iv) The CIT(A)'s orders may be set aside and remitted back to him for a fair and judicious approach according to law. 2. Shri Lakshminarasimhan, the learned authorized representative while reiterating the grounds raised in the appeal submits that there was no reason or circumstance before the assessee to withdraw their pending appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had engaged Shri B.V. Subbarayan, FCA to represent them but due to his illness during the hearing date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter its restoration, the said petition was rejected by the CIT(A) on 28th Sept., 1992, without any communication in this regard to the assessee. 3. Sri G.N. Bhat, the learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submits that Sri B.S. Balachandran was duly authorised by the assessee to withdraw their appeal pending before the CIT(A)-I no adjustment petition dt. 29th May, 1992, was filed and the CIT(A) accordingly had rightly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The learned Departmental Representative while referring the order-sheet dt. 4th June, 1992, submits further that in token of acknowledgment of withdrawal permission the CIT(A) had obtained the signature of Shri Balachandran on the order-sheet dt. 4th June, 1991, wherein it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings notice, of the AO, the assessee had preferred an appeal with a petition for staying the disputed tax demand before the CIT(A) on 5th Nov., 1990. In the order sheet dt. 4th June, 1992, of the 1st appeal proceedings under the signature of the CIT(A), it is only noted as Sri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate attended and sought permission to withdraw the appeal as there is no merit in the case; with a noting under signature of Shri Balachandran as "I agree to the above noting". However in a format certified copy of the order dt. 4th June, 1992, which has been supplied to the assessee, the order reads as under: "This is an appeal against an order passed by the AO under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. In response to notice issued f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to withdraw the 1st appeal and an assessee should not be let suffer due to fault on the part of his counsel, acting beyond the instructions of his client.
8. We however, considering the totality of the entire circumstances, which are different from the cases cited by the learned Departmental Representative allow the present appeal in favour of the assessee. The order impugned herein is set aside with a direction to the 1st appellate authority to restore the 1st appeal of the assessee and consider it on its merits. We make it clear that our view expressed herein will have no bearing in any manner on the merits of the 1st appeal of the assessee to be disposed of by the CIT(A).
9. In result, the assessee appeal is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
