At, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad Bench
By, K VENKATARAMAN
By, S R DESHPANDE & T K JAGANNATH SINGH
K. Krishna Rao : J. Krishnamurthy
The Judgment was delivered by :
K. VANKATARAMAN, CHAIRMAN :
This is an appeal against the order of the Asstt. CIT (A), Kakinada dt. 31st March, 1977 and made in N. Dis. B2 9126/70 returning the appeal field by the appellants as not entertainable.
2. The appellants are dealers in oil seeds, cakes etc. For the asst. yr. 1968-69, the assessee's report
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
d a total turnover of Rs. 1, 10, 62, 651, 06. They also claimed exemption on a turnover of more than rupees 1 crore. The assessing authority. (CTO, Tadepallugidem) fixed the total turnover at Rs. 1, 19, 26, 244.79) and brought to tax a net turnover of Rs. 7, 06, 197.15 after granting exemption on a turnover of Rs. 1, 12, 19, 097.46. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the assessees filed an appeal before the Asstt. Commr. of Commr. Taxes, Kakinada disputing a turnover of Rs. 65, 169.67.3. The aforesaid appeal was filed in 1970 itself. After a long lapse of about 7 years, the appellants received the following communication from the office of the Asstt. Commr. of Commr. Taxes Kakinada."N. Dis. B21926/70Dt. 31-3-1977Officer of the Asstt.Commr. of Commr. Taxes(A), Kakinada.2. Returned.The petitioners are hereby informed that appeal petitioner is not in order as required under A.P.G.S.T. Act and Rules.The appeal petition is therefore returned as it is not entertainable.Sd/- C. Seetha Devi,31-1-1977Asstt. Commr. of Commr.Taxes (A) Kakinda"It was against the said communication that the present appeal is filed before us.4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Asstt. CIT referred to above is illegal ?5. Point : The only contention that has been raised before us by the learned Authorised Representative, is that the order of the Asstt. CIT returning the appeal as not entertainable is illegal, and we see substance in the aforesaid contention. The learned Asstt. CIT returned the appeal as not entertainable. In the said order, it is also mentioned that the appeal petition is not in order as required under A.P.G.S.T. Act and Rules. It is not known in what respects the appeal petition of the appellants is defective. The learned State Representative also expressed his inability, for the want of record, to state in what respects the appeal filed by the appellants is defective. The contention of the learned Authorised Representative is that their appeal is quite in order. As there is nothing on record, we do not propose to go into the question whether the appeal petition filed by the appellants is in order or defective. Even assuming that the appeal petition filed by the petitioners is defective, it is not open to the learned Asstt. CIT to return the appeal as not entertainable. it is not known what exactly the learned Asstt. CIT had in view when he returned the appeal as not entertainable. A plain reading of the communication received by the appellants would indicate that the appeal is rejected as it is not entertainable. If really there are any defects in the appeal petition, principles of natural justice would require the learned Asstt. CIT to point out the defects in the appeal petition and return the same with a direction to re-present it after rectifying the defects within a reasonable time. We therefore, hold that the order of the learned Asstt. CIT is not proper. Accordingly we hold the point in favour of the appellants.6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellants will represent the appeal petition before the Asstt. CIT within 15 days from the receipt of this order. After receiving the appeal petition from the appellants, the Asstt. CIT is directed to receive it and dispose of the same as per law.
"1978 (5) TTJ 595"