RUKHMINI SOFTWARE P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 7(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1438/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 143819914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P ITAMBAR DAS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND B. R.BASKARAN (AM) . . , . . , ./I.T.A. NO.1438/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08) M/S RUKHMINI SOFTWARE PVT.LTD., A/2, 402, POONAM PARK, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 7(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( / APPELLANT) . . ( !' / RESPONDENT) ./ $% ./ PAN/GIRNO.: AADCR0412M & / APPELLANT BY : NONE !' ' & /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS ( ) ' * + / DATE OF HEARING : 8.9.2014 ,- ' * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8.9.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-9, MUMBAI AND IT REL ATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENC E, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL EX-PARTE, I.E., WITHOUT TH E PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE NOTICE THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATIO N BY 2 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A PETITION REQUESTING TO BENCH T O CONDONE THE DELAY. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE AFFIDA VIT, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERITS. I.T.A. NO.1438/MUM/2013 2 4. WE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO AND HENCE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE ORDER EX-PARTE . IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THOUG H THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE S ON MERITS BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER, YET, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE SHOU LD HAVE BEEN GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BY LD CIT(A) IN ORDER TO PRESENT HIS CA SE ON THE MATTERS AGITATED BEFORE HIM. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ALL THE ISSUES SHOULD B E DECIDED AFRESH BY THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RE STORE ALL THE ISSUES TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THEM AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THEM IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH SEPT, 2014 . ,- ( . /0 1 2 8 TH SEPT, 2014 - ' 3) 4 SD SD ( . . / H.L. KARWA ) ( . . , / B.R. BASKARAN) / PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / ( ) MUMBAI : 8TH SEPT,2014 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS I.T.A. NO.1438/MUM/2013 3 ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( 9* ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. ( 9* / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6. :; 3 !*< , + < , / ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 3 = ) / GUARD FILE. > ( / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ? $ (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) + < , / ( ) /ITAT, MUMBAI