INDOCO REMEDIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT (TDS) RG 2, MUMBAI

ITA 1794/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2440 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK RIPOTE
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 1794 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) INDOCO REMEDIES LIMITED, INDOCO HOUSE, 166, C.S.T. ROAD, SANTACRUZ (EAST), MUMBAI 400 098 PAN: AAACI0380C ... APPELLANT VS. THE ACIT( TDS)RANGE -2, CHARNI ROAD,MUMBAI 400004 .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PANKAJ JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK RIPOTE DATE OF HEARING : 19/07/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/07/2016 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAI NING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORD ER PASSED BY CIT(A)- 59, MUMBAI DATED 05/01/2015 WHICH IN TURN ARISES O UT OF AN ORDER DATED 28/05/2012 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE A SSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271C OF THE ACT OF RS.50,587/- FOR NON/SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SO URCE. 2 ITA NO. 1794 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) 3. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE O UTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER AFTER REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEES REP RESENTATIVE, AS IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E ASSESSEE WOULD BE SATISFIED IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FIL E OF CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH ON MERITS AS PER LAW AFTER HEARI NG THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT OPP OSED ASSESSEES PLEA FOR REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. OSTENSIBLY, THE CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CASUAL AND DID NOT REFLECT ANY INTEREST IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL, AS THE AD JOURNMENT APPLICATION MOVED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN OUR VIEW, THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL IS CO NTRARY TO THE LEGAL POSITION CONTAINED IN SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT . A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DIS MISSED MERELY NOTICING THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT DEALI NG THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. SECTION 25 0(6) OF THE ACT OBLIGATES THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BY ST ATING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. THE SAID APPROACH IS CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A). ON THIS GROUND ITSELF, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UNSUSTAINABLE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE DEEM FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE 3 ITA NO. 1794 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BA CK TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/07/2016 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22/07/2016 VM , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI