Allowed

Shri Vimlesh Lumar Daga v. the Income Tax Officer

Madras HC5 Jan 2021TCA/491/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Member Bench of the High Court of MadRAS allowed the tax case appeal against an ITAT order that dismissed an appeal on a technical defect (initial error in appellant's name). Relying on a recent similar judgment, the Court set aside the ITAT order for violating principles of natural justice and restored the matter to the Tribunal for merits, while leaving the substantive questions of la

What did the court decide?

The Tax Case Appeal was allowed; the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside; the appeal was restored to the Tribunal to be heard and decided on merits.

Shri Vimlesh Lumar Daga Vs the Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Tax Case Appeal No.491 of 2020

¶7

Shri Vimlesh Lumar Daga, 82, Audiappan Naicken Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079 PAN: ABTPV5851A ...Appellant

¶8

¶9

The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward – 6(4), Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondent

¶10

APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.207/Chny/2019 for the assessment year 2011-12 against the order passed by the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nunambakkam, chennnai-34 dated 29.11.2018 made in ITA.No.391/CIT(A)-51 2017-2018 Assessment Year 2011-2012.

¶11

against the order passed by the office of the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-6(4) Room No.421, 4th floor, BSNL Building, Greams Road, Chennai 6 made in PAN.No.ABTPV5851A Assessment year 2011-2012 dated 15.12.2017.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel

¶14

This appeal, filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), is directed against the order dated 29.04.2019 made in I.T.A.No.207/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2011-12.

¶17

The appellant/assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

¶18

“1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in passing the exparte order by not granting adequate opportunity of hearing especially in the context of the legal requirement for the adherence to the principles of natural justice?

¶19

Whether the dismissal of the appeal on the technical ground of the presumed defect in the appeal is legally sustainable on the consideration of the limited powers vested with the Appellate Tribunal in dealing with the defective appeals and further on the consideration of the gross violation of the principles of natural justice?

¶20

Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in not considering the grounds challenging the validity of the reopening of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act even though the borrowed satisfaction should not be reckoned as valid information for the purpose of assuming such jurisdiction for completing the re-assessment?”

¶21

We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – Revenue.

¶22

The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal was defective. Identical issue was considered by us in the case of M.Mukesh Kumar vs Income Tax Officer in T.C.A.No.2 of 2021 dated 04.01.2021. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:

¶23

“4. It may not be necessary for us to go into the factual matrix, as the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was defective. From the defect memo, which was notified to the assessee, we find that the initial of the assessee was shown as 'I' instead of 'M' and owing to such a reason, the appeal was dismissed as defective by the impugned order. In fact, hearing of the appeal took place on 27.3.2019 and none

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

appeared for the assessee. It is relevant to note that in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the initial of the assessee has been correctly shown as 'M'. Thus, the Tribunal itself rectified the mistake. 5. In any event, the mistake, being an insignificant or inadvertent error, ought to have been permitted to be rectified instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground that it was defective despite Rule 12 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 provides for such a procedure to be adhered to. Further, we are informed that the defect memo issued by the Registry of the Tribunal along with hearing notice and the papers were not returned earlier to the assessee or to their authorized representative.

¶26

It is high time that the Tribunal evolves a procedure, by which, the defective papers are returned to the assessee or the Revenue and reasonable time can be granted for rectifying the defects. In fact, such a procedure is being followed in this Court, as a result of which, many of the minor defects were rectified and cases are numbered. Thus, considering the fact that the appeal was dismissed on a technical ground, which, in our opinion, appears to be on a hyper technical ground, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶27

Accordingly, the above tax case appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal to be heard and decided on merits and in accordance with law. We direct that the name of the assessee shall be mentioned as 'M.Mukesh Kumar' in all the appeal papers and the assessee/his authorized representative shall be permitted by the Registry of the Tribunal to carry out the corrections and if necessary, clean copies of the appeal papers shall be made available. The substantial questions of law raised are left open. No costs.”

¶28

We find that the above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand and there are no distinguishable features warranting a different view to be taken in the present matter.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

Therefore, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal.

¶31

In the result, the Tax Case Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal to be heard and decided on merits in accordance with law. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised are left open. No costs.

¶32

-s/d-

¶33

Assistant Registrar

¶34

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
hvk
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench,
Chennai.
2. The Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward – 6(4),
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Nungambakkam, Chennai
4.The Income Tax Officer
Non-Corporate ward6(4) Chennai
+1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar Advocate sr424
TCA.No.491 of 2020
srII(co)
aa19/02/2021

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Shri Vimlesh Lumar Daga v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vimlesh Lumar Daga v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pioneer Services Vs the Customs Excise and

Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central

M/S.Frp Institute Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Shri Ankit a Jain

Shri Rajesh Kumar(Huf) Vs the Income Tax Officer

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M.Kiran Kumar