Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)67TTJ(AHD)386
ORDER
T.N. Chopra, A.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 13-10-1998 for assessment year 1995-96, vide impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the facts and grounds raised by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee has failed to put in an appearance on the various dates of hearing and finally when the appeal was fixed on 12-10-1998, an application of adjournment has been moved. The Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. The Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the decision of M.P. High Court in the case of Late Tukolirao Holkar v. M7 (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP).
2. Shri Mukesh Patel, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution is entirely erroneous and misconceived. Learned counsel argued that it is obligatory for the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a speaking order discussing the merits of the various claims raised by the assessee in the appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that appeals filed for the earlier assessment years, namely, for assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, which were filed prior to the filing of the present appeal, were pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) and have, in fact, not even been taken up for disposal. In the circumstances, taking up the appeal, for assessment year 1995-96, which included common points involved in the earlier years was not proper and appropriate. The learned counsel very fairly conceded that there has been non-compliance with the notices of hearing on 26-8-1998 and 10-9-1998. However, it is pointed out that the adjournment application duly moved by the assessee on 12-10-1998, requesting for adjournment on valid grounds has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) without proper appreciation of the reasons which necessitated the request for adjournment by the assessee. Learned counsel strongly pleaded that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside in the interest of justice and equity. Learned departmental Representative on the other hand, placed reliance on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made before us. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly violative of the express provisions of section 250(6), which provides that the appellate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decision. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Absence of the formulation of the point for decision for want of clarity in a decision undoubtedly puts a party in quandary. Section 250(6) expressly embodies the principles of natural justice and such a provision is clearly mandatory in nature. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) cannot, therefore, be sustained. Regarding the decisions of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Multiplan India Ltd, (supra) cited by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the said decision is clearly distinguishable. Section 254 referring to the orders of the Tribunal confers plenary jurisdiction on the Tribunal in the matter of passing orders under section 254(1). There is no such express stipulation in section 254 as contained under the provisions of section 250(6) relating to the orders of first appellate authority. Therefore, reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on Multiplan India Ltd. (supra) is entirely misplaced. Similarly, the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (supra) cited by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is distinguishable and does not support the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. For the reasons indicated above, we hereby set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal of the assessee afresh after allowing proper opportunity in accordance with law.
5. For statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed.