CHANDRAMOULI SILK MILLS, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1423/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7556 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R BAIWAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL K HAKANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. R.V. EASWAR, SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI. T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1423/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) M/S. CHANDRAMOULI SILK MILLS 412, EMCA HOUSE, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 PAN NO.: AAAFC 1444 Q VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(3)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 1 ST FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI. RAHUL K. HAKANI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.R. BAIWAR O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X II, MUMBAI, DATED 06.11.2008 AND RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GR OUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,10,366/- BEING INTEREST RECEIVABLE BY THE APPELLANT, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS N OT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,27,088/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF T.D.S. CERTIFICAT E RECEIVED FROM THE PARTY AS THEIR INCOME AND HAS CLA IMED THE T.D.S. OF THE SIMILAR ACCOUNT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR A MEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE FIRST APPELLAN T AUTHORITY IN LIMINE BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND. HE SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD CHANGED THE ADDRESS BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE SAME WAS NOT INFORMED TO THE DEPARTMENT. SINCE, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON- PROSECUTION, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY RESTORED TO THE CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORIT Y. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT SINCE THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT BEING ADJUDICATED ON MERITS FOR NON- ATTENDANCE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR AF RESH ADJUDICATION. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE PR OCEEDINGS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 SD/- SD/- R.V. EASWAR T.R. SOOD (SR. VICE-PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) MUMBAI, DATED THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2010 NEELAM COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-XII, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, C BENCH, MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI