(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ) The appellant-assessee has filed this tax appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2004-05, proposing to formulate the following substantial questions for determination and consideration of this Court:
"[A] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was right in law in rejecting the ground of appeal relating to the ownership of seized cash and jewelery and directing that the parties would be at liberty to raise their respective claim in the proceedings of Shri Tarun Karia?
[B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal could have reached to the conclusion that the issues raised in ground No.1.1, 2.1 & 2.2 against the findings of the Assessing Officer relating to the seized assets was academic in nature?
[C] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC Bench had jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal filed by the appellant?"
This Court has issued notice on 20.9.2010 for final disposal. Pursuant to the notice, Mrs.Mauna M. Bhatt, learned standing counsel appears on behalf of the respondent - revenue.
Heard Mr.S.N.Divetia, learned advocate for the appellant and Mrs.Mauna M. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
The short point involved in this appeal and the grievance ventilated by the appellant is that while disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal has observed that the Assessing Officer has recorded the finding that the requisite asset did not belong to the assessee. The case of the Department is that they belong to Mr. Tarun Karia, whereas the assessee submits that they belong to him. However, no addition has been made on this account by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on this issue. The Tribunal has, however, given liberty to the parties to raise their respective claim in the proceedings of Mr. Tarun Karia. The Tribunal has further observed with regard to the respondent assessee's appeal that the issue is only academic in nature which requires no discussion.
Mr.Divetia's main contention is that it is practically impossible for the appellant to make any submission in the appeal filed by Mr.Tarun Karia. There is no provision which permits a party to make submission in the appeal filed by another assessee. His only prayer in the present appeal was that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the Tribunal to decide the assessee's appeal on merits and it should be heard along with the appeal of Mr.Tarun Karia.
Mrs.Mauna Bhatt, on the other hand, submitted that there is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal and hence, the appeal should be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal should not have dismissed the assessee's appeal only on the ground that the issue involved in the said appeal is of an academic nature only. Even otherwise, it is not possible for the appellant assessee to make any submission in the appeal filed by another assessee. Interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is quashed and set aside, with a direction to the Tribunal to hear both the appeals i.e. the appeal filed by the appellant - assessee as well as the appeal filed by Mr. Tarun Karia, together and appropriate decision be taken on the basis of the submissions that may be made before the Tribunal.
In the above view of the matter, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Tribunal and restore the matter back to the file of the Tribunal, with a direction to hear both the appeals, namely, the appeal filed by the appellant - assessee and the appeal filed by Mr. Tarun Karia, together and appropriate decision be taken on merits of the case.
This appeal stands disposed of, accordingly, with aforesaid directions.
[K.A.PUJ, J.] [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar* Top