Komet Precision Tools India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore
[Citation -2019-LL-0913-98]

Citation 2019-LL-0913-98
Appellant Name Komet Precision Tools India Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore
Court ITAT-Bangalore
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 13/09/2019
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags recalling order • ex-parte order • rejection of adjournment application • mistake in order • use of land • appropriate opportunity of being heard
Bot Summary: CIT Date of hearing 06.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 13.09.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This M.P. is filed by the assessee seeking recall of ex-parte Tribunal order dated 06.12.2017. AR of assessee that although in para 6 of the Tribunal order, the Tribunal has reproduced relevant paras from the earlier Tribunal order in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2008- 09 but thereafter, the Tribunal has also noted about the judgment of Hon ble M.P. No. 174/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 3 Punjab Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Thukral Regal Shoes Vs. CIT and thereafter, the appeal was decided on this basis that no material was brought on record to show that the land was put to use and therefore, the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is squarely applicable. DR of revenue submitted that there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal order and therefore the M.P. of the assessee should be dismissed. 5.1 from the impugned Tribunal order which reads as under. 5.1 On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee and in fact, an adjournment petition from M/s.Manohar Chowdhry Associates, Chartered Accountants, was moved by the manager of the said firm and this petition was rejected for simply reason that the issue in appeal is covered by the order of this Tribunal in earlier year. From the above paras reproduced from the Tribunal order, it is seen that although adjudication petition was rejected on this basis that the issue is covered against the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for earlier year but the appeal was decided on a different basis i.e. on this basis that no material was brought on record to show that land was put to use and therefore, the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is squarely applicable. Under these facts, we are of the considered opinion that this Tribunal order is without granting appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and adjournment petition was rejected on a basis different than the basis on which the appeal was ultimately decided.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. No. 174/Bang/2018 (in ITA No. 1309/Bang/2016) Assessment Year 2010-11 M/s. Komet Precision Tools Assistant India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of 16J, Attibele Industrial Area, Vs. Income-tax, Bangalore 560 107. Circle 4(1)(1), PAN: AABCK4981E Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by Dr. Palani Kumar S., Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing 06.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 13.09.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This M.P. is filed by assessee seeking recall of ex-parte Tribunal order dated 06.12.2017. 2. It is submitted in M.P. filed by assessee that adjournment petition was moved by assessee seeking adjournment and this is noted by Tribunal also in para 5.1 of impugned Tribunal order that adjournment petition was filed by M/s. Manohar Chowdhry Associates, Chartered Accountants but this petition was rejected on this basis that issue in appeal is covered by Tribunal in earlier year. 3. In course of hearing, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that although in para 6 of Tribunal order, Tribunal has reproduced relevant paras from earlier Tribunal order in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2008- 09 but thereafter, Tribunal has also noted about judgment of Hon ble M.P. No. 174/Bang/2018 (in ITA No. 1309/Bang/2016) Page 2 of 3 Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in case of Thukral Regal Shoes Vs. CIT (391 ITR 119 ) (P&H) and thereafter, appeal was decided on this basis that no material was brought on record to show that land was put to use and therefore, proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is squarely applicable. He submitted that form this finding of impugned Tribunal order, this is clear that this is not case of covered issue by Tribunal order in assessee s own case in earlier year and therefore, appeal of assessee stands decided without granting appropriate opportunity to assessee and hence, this ex-parte Tribunal order should be recalled. ld. DR of revenue submitted that there is no apparent mistake in Tribunal order and therefore M.P. of assessee should be dismissed. 4. We have considered rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para no. 5.1 from impugned Tribunal order which reads as under. 5.1 On date of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee and in fact, adjournment petition from M/s.Manohar Chowdhry Associates, Chartered Accountants, was moved by manager of said firm and this petition was rejected for simply reason that issue in appeal is covered by order of this Tribunal in earlier year. 5. Now we also reproduce final decision of Tribunal from page no. 6 of impugned Tribunal order. Even during this year, there is no material on record to show that land was put to use and therefore, proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is squarely applicable. CIT(A), without considering provisions of proviso to section 36(1)(iii) had granted relief. Therefore, we reverse order of CIT(A). 6. From above paras reproduced from Tribunal order, it is seen that although adjudication petition was rejected on this basis that issue is covered against assessee by Tribunal order in assessee s own case for earlier year but appeal was decided on different basis i.e. on this basis that no material was brought on record to show that land was put to use and therefore, proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is squarely applicable. Under these facts, we are of considered opinion that this Tribunal order is without granting appropriate opportunity of hearing to assessee and adjournment petition was rejected on basis different than basis on which appeal was ultimately decided. Hence, we feel it proper to recall this Tribunal order which is akin to passing of ex-parte Tribunal order without proper basis. We M.P. No. 174/Bang/2018 (in ITA No. 1309/Bang/2016) Page 3 of 3 order accordingly and direct Registry to fix this appeal for hearing on 26.11.2019. Since date of hearing is pronounced in open court, no separate notice of hearing is required to be issued. 7. In result, M.P. filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on date mentioned on caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 13th September, 2019. Copy to 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Komet Precision Tools India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore
Report Error