Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3 v. Shardaben Shankarji Thakor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 894 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 895 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 896 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 897 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 898 of 2018 ================================================================ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3VersusSHARDABEN SHANKARJI THAKOR ================================================================ Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 23/07/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.As all these appeals arise out of common order passed by the learned ITAT for different Assessment Years, all these appeals are heard together. 2.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 27.12.2017 passed in IT (SS) Nos.112 to 116/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, by which the learned Tribunal has remanded the said appeals back to the file of the learned CIT (Appeals) for his fresh decision de novo, the Revenue has preferred the present appeals with the following proposed questions of law:- “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(A) on the ground that CIT(A) had not rendered any decision on merits without appreciating the fact that due to total non-compliance on part of the assessee despite granting sufficient opportunities, CIT(A) did not have any material to further dwelt upon the issue and had no choice but to frame an order based on the finding, given in the ex-parte order passed by A.O.? (B)Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication without taking into considerationwhethertherewere justifiable grounds for making total non-compliance by the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as the AO?” 3.When the attention of Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue was drawn to the observations made by the learned Tribunal in para-2 of the impugned common order that in fact, the Departmental Representative gave no objection to the matter being remitted back to the file of the learned CIT (Appeals) for adjudication on merits, how thereafter the Revenue /Department can make a grievance, to that, Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that even the learned Tribunal has specifically observed that the Departmental Representative has stated that he did not have much to say. It is submitted that as such, the aforesaid cannot be said to be a concession and /or on objection by the Departmental Representative. It is submitted that as such, in the present case, there was no question of any concession by the Departmental Representative in remitting the matter back to the learned CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication. As noted by the learned CIT (Appeals), for one and half year, number of opportunities were given to the assessee. Despite the same, he /they did not avail the same. It is submitted that therefore the Department would like to prefer rectification applications before the learned Tribunal. However, it is requested to observe that the said applications be considered in accordance with law and on merits and considering the factual matrix noted by the learned CIT (Appeals). the learned CIT (Appeals). 4.In view of the above, we permit the Revenue to withdraw the present appeals with the above liberty. All these appeals stand disposed of as withdrawn with the above liberty. As and when such applications are preferred, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits and in light of the submissions to be made and /or even considering the findings recorded by the learned CIT (Appeals). (M.R. SHAH, J) SHITOLE (A.Y. KOGJE, J)