H.P. Agro Industries Corp. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
Government Corporation is like any other assessee before the tax authority and cannot be allowed to plead that on this count it be given a preferential treatment and be allowed to escape the responsibilities of representing their case before the other governmental authorities including the tax authorities.
Facts-
The assessee, a Government Corporation of the H.P. Government. The assessee is stated to be engaged in trading of items like Tractor, Iron and Steel, Tyres and Tubes, Insecticides and Pesticides etc. It is also seen to be carrying on manufacturing activities such as formulation of animal feed, insecticides and pesticides, processing honey and fabrication of agricultural implements road and forest tolls etc .
The assessee’s representation before the AO has been an abuse of the process of law as effectively there was no participation and that It is seen that after affording opportunities the Assessing Officer ultimately passed the order u/s 144 as the claims in the return remained unsubstantiated despite opportunity. Hence the AO dismissed the plea of the assessee. The CIT confirmed the order of AO. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee approached the Tribunal.
Conclusion-
The assessee admittedly did not participate in the proceedings before the AO either fairly or completely. However, while so holding we are also live to the submissions of the assessee in as much as for want of proper representation/ shortcomings etc. by a duly appointed Representative the assessee should not be made to suffer. It is seen that ld. CIT(A) noticing that the submission was unsupported by an Affidavit of the AR appointed has dismissed the bald argument. Considering the same, we hold that while the First Appellate Authority was justified to dismiss the bald plea, at the same time, being live to the practical difficulties of the assessee also in obtaining such an affidavit from its counsel, we deem it appropriate presently to dispense with such a requirement. However, the said observation, it is hoped is treated by the assessee with full knowledge and awareness of the seriousness of the consequences if the filing of the affidavit of its earlier A.R. is insisted upon by an adjudicating authority. Such a requirement can put the assessee to all the possible perils of being made answerable to a counter submission by its representative that full facts were never made available by the assessee for effective representation. We would like to make it clear that the assessees, even though it is a government authority cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law. Bald unsupported excuses of blaming its AR without first satisfying the adjudicating authority that all necessary details for compliances were always provided to the counsel is a requirement which cannot be summarily overlooked. It is obvious that a counsel can make representation on behalf of an assessee only if all details are made available by the assessee to its C.A./counsel. Infact ideally an affidavit to the said extent would be the foremost primary fact on which we would first insist to be demonstrated.
We are of the firm view that the responsibility of the assessee does not end by merely appointing a Counsel. The assessee necessarily needs to ensure and make available all necessary informations to its counsel for enabling him to participate effectively in the hearing. However, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, considering the oral undertaking given we do not insist on an affidavit of the assessee. Having expressed our displeasure on the lax attitude evident on record, accepting the oral undertaking given, we deem it appropriate to direct a remand. At the same time at this stage we deem it necessary to highlight that a Government Corporation is like any other assessee before the tax authority and cannot be allowed to plead that on this count it be given a preferential treatment and be allowed to escape the responsibilities of representing their case before the other governmental authorities including the tax authorities. The rigors of non-compliances with the requirements of the Statute are same for all assessees. We make it clear that merely because the assessee is a Government authority, it itself is no reason for the authority to act in an irresponsible and negligent manner. Participation in the proceedings before the Tax Authorities, it is expected, be given a high priority always, specially so by the Government authorities which exist and function for the benefit of the State.
