Saipem Drilling Company Pvt.Ltd.,Formerly, Mumbai V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1296/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64673 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: N VIJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE RIBUNAL D BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ---------- ITA NO. 1296/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S. SAIPEM DRILLING COMPANY PVT. LTD., FORMERLY, SAIPEM ABAN DRILLING CO. LTD., 709/710 MIDAS, 7 TH FLOOR, SAHAR PLAZA COMPLEX, MATHURADAS VASANJI ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 059 V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-VI(1), CHENNAI-600 034. (PAN : AAACS5065L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. VIJAY KUMAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 27.1 1.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.201 2 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-IX, CHENNAI DATED 30-03-2012 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ITA NO.1296/MDS/2012 2 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, WHO IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ACTIVE DRILLING AND OFFSHORE EXPLORATIO N OF OIL, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.2003 ADMITTING INCOME OF ` 3,35,61,590/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING DISALLOWANCES TO THE TUNE OF ` 78,22,265/- AND ` 13,57,648/- IN RESPECT OF CONSULTANCY AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES AND BAD DEBTS RESPECTIVELY AND ADJUSTED THE BROUGHT FORWARD OF LOSSES TO THE EXTEN T OF INCOME AVAILABLE. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO APPEARA NCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BE FORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HA ND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD S AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AFTER ITA NO.1296/MDS/2012 3 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FEE L THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND DIRECT HIM TO AFFORD ONE MORE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON TUESDAY, THE 27 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (V.DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE