TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Appellate Commissioner, on such condition that the Tribunal thought fit to impose on the appellant - without expressing any opinion on the Appellate Commissioner imposing the condition of part pre-deposit on the appellant, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's Second Appeal as if there was no intermediary stage of the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner or any requirement of pre-deposit under section 73(4) – Assessee also contributed to the complication as he never prayed for setting aside the appellate order of imposing condition and subsequently, dismissing his appeal when he failed to fulfil such condition - The Tribunal could have either permitted the appellant to suitably amend the prayer or if the appellant was not willin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r levying the penalty in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. There is no order as to costs. Pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of January, 2014. 3. Against the tax demand confirmed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant herein had preferred first appeal before the Commissioner, and the Commissioner directed the appellant to deposit twenty per cent of the tax demand by way of pre-deposit. The appellant could not do so. The first appeal was, therefore, dismissed by an order dated 6th April 2013. Against such order, the appellant preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 6.50 lakhs. On deposit of such amount, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an appeal against such order (a) without payment of tax, interest, if any or as the case may be, of the penalty, or (b) on proof of payment of such small sum as it may consider necessary or (c) on the appellant furnishing in the prescribed manner security or such as the appellate authority may direct. 4. In view of section 73(4) of the Act, therefore, such appeal could not have been entertained unless in terms of proviso, the appellate authority for reasons recorded in writing relaxed the requirement of full predeposit. In the present case, the Appellate Commissioner exercised such powers and required the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount confirmed by the adjudicating authority. When the appellant failed to fulfill such requiremen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the condition of part predeposit on the appellant, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's Second Appeal as if there was no intermediary stage of the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner or any requirement of predeposit under section 73(4) of the Act. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant himself also substantially contributed to this complication. In the appeal, his main grounds were against the assessment order. His prayers pertained only to the issues on merits about the additions made by the Assessing Officer. There was no prayer for setting aside the appellate order of imposing condition and subsequently, dismissing his appeal when he failed to fulfill such condition. Even if it were so, the Tribunal could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
