ONTRACK SYSTEMS LTD., KOLKATA V. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1567/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5315 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABANIKANT NAYAK
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.:1565, 1566, 1567, 1568 & 1569/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 TO 2010-11 M/S. ONTRACK SYSTEMS LTD., Y-18, EP BLOCK, SECTOR V, SALT LAKE, KOLKATA 700 091. PAN: AAACO 0679E V. THE D CIT, COMPANY CIRCLE V(1), CHENNAI 34. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABANI KANT NAYAK, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.09.2021 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, CHENNAI, DATED 06.12.2018, 05.03.2019 & 11.03.2019 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11. SINCE, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NOS.1565 TO 1569/CHNY/2019 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IT AND IT ENABLED SERVICES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, & 2010-11 U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 14.03.2014, 23.12.2010, 16.02.2012, 27.03.2013 AND 12.03.2014, WHERE THE AO HAS MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS INCLUDING ADDITIONS TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.10A OF THE ACT, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE, ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS PROVIDED. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS EX-PARTE, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WHERE HE HAS CONFIRMED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR, PERUSED MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT 3 I.T.A. NOS.1565 TO 1569/CHNY/2019 APPEAR DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING WAS PROVIDED. NO DOUBT, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NO OPTION BUT TO DISPOSE OFF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR FOR HEARING, BUT SUCH APPEALS SHOULD BE DISPOSED ON MERITS. IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT SUCH APPEALS WERE DISPOSED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2021 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) /VICE PRESIDENT ( . ) (G. MANJUNATHA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2021 RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( ) /CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF.