Tax Appeal Nos. 79, 80, 81 And 82 Of 2015 v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Aayakar Bhavan, Plot

1 TXA No. 79 to 82 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. TAX APPEAL NOS. 79, 80, 81 AND 82 OF 2015. Zuari Global Ltd.(Formerly known as Zuari Industries Ltd.)a company incorporated under The Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956) through its AuthorisedRepresentatives Shri Anandu VithalNayak, having registered office atJaikisan Bhawan, Zuarinagar, Goa 403 726…... Appellant. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa, 403001.….... Respondent. Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani and Ms. Priyanka Kamat,Advocates for the appellant in all the appeals.Ms. A. Desai, Advocate for the respondent in all the appeals. Coram:-F. M. REIS, K. L. WADANE,JJ. Date:-16[th] February, 2016. ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per F. M. REIS, J.) Heard Mr. Mr. Salil Kapoor, learned Advocate appearingfor the appellant and Ms. A. Desai, learned Advocate appearing for therespondent. 2.Admit on the following substantial question of law:-Whether the impugned order passed by theTribunal dated 7.7.2015 stands vitiated for notcomplying with the natural principle of justice? 2 TXA No. 79 to 82 of 2015 3.Ms. A. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for therespondent waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 4.Mr. Salil Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for theappellant has pointed out that the impugned order passed by theTribunal is without giving an opportunity to the appellant of anadequate hearing as on the relevant date i.e 7.7.2015, when thematter was posted for hearing the counsel appearing for the appellantwas unable to attend the proceedings as his uncle had expired. Thelearned counsel further points out that it was also brought to thenotice of the learned Tribunal that in view of the said death thelearned counsel for the appellant would not appear in other courts.The learned Counsel further points out that the learned Tribunalrefused the adjournment and proceeded to decide the matter on meritswithout giving a hearing to the appellant. The learned counsel furthersubmitted that not giving such an opportunity itself vitiates theimpugned order though the appellant has a good case on merits. Thelearned Counsel further submits that the matter may be remanded tothe learned Tribunal to decide afresh after giving an opportunity ofhearing, in accordance with law. 5.On the other hand Ms. Asha Desai, learned counselappearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order. Theleaned Counsel points out that the learned Tribunal proceeded to 3 TXA No. 79 to 82 of 2015 decide the matter on merits, as according to her, the appeal had nomerits. The learned counsel further submits that all the contentionswhich were raised by the appellant were given up by the appellantbefore the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel, as such, pointsout that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by thelearned Tribunal. The learned Counsel further states that Mr. AnanduVithal Nayak, Deputy General Manager of the appellant was presenton the relevant date. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant in reply to the saidcontentions has submitted that the purported withdrawal wasconditional and, as such, according to him, there was no unconditionalwithdrawal of the grounds raised in the appeal. 7.We have considered the rival submissions of the learnedCounsel appearing for the respective parties and we have also gonethrough the record. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant in reply to the saidcontentions has submitted that the purported withdrawal wasconditional and, as such, according to him, there was no unconditionalwithdrawal of the grounds raised in the appeal. 7.We have considered the rival submissions of the learnedCounsel appearing for the respective parties and we have also gonethrough the record. 8. We do not propose to go into the merits of the controversyand as such the rival contentions of both the parties are left openconsidering the view, we propose to take in the above appeal. In thepresent case, it is not disputed that the matter was posted on 7.7.2015.It is also not disputed that prior to such date the appellant had onlysought two adjournments. On account of some unavoidable reasons ofthe death in the family of the counsel of the appellant, the concerned 4 TXA No. 79 to 82 of 2015 counsel was unable to represent the appellant on the relevant date.The fact that there was a death in the family of the counsel of theappellant is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for therespondent. In such circumstances, considering that the appellant arenot unnecessarily delaying the matter and as on the relevant datethere was justifiable reason which prevented the counsel for theappellant to remain present before the learned Tribunal, we find thatthe learned Tribunal was not justified to refuse an adjournment. 9.Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the caseand in the interest of justice, the learned Tribunal could have given anopportunity of hearing to the appellant for the subsequent date.Having failed to grant a short adjournment has resulted in passing theimpugned order in breach of the principle of natural justice which callsfor the interference of this Court. The substantial question of law isanswered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, we pass the following:- ORDER iThe impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal dated7.7.2015 is quashed and set aside.7.7.2015 is quashed and set aside. ii. The Appeals preferred by the appellant before the learnedTribunal is restored to the file of the learned Tribunal.Tribunal is restored to the file of the learned Tribunal. iii.The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the appeals afreshafter hearing the parties, in accordance with law.after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. 5 TXA No. 79 to 82 of 2015 iv. All the contentions of the parties on merits are left open. v Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. K. L. WADANE,J. F. M. REIS,J. vn*