M/s. Lalita Distributors, Cuttack V. ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack, Cuttack

ITA 192/CTK/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Lalita Distributors appealing against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The primary issues pertained to the write-off of bad debts amounting to Rs.50,000 and procedural discrepancies in the filing of appeals. The Tribunal noted procedural errors in the handling of the appeals by the CIT(A) and the AO, particularly the failure to provide adequate opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their claims and the improper handling of the appeal's filing format (physical vs. electronic). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities, leading to the restoration of the issues to the AO for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127127 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA Nos.191&192/C TK /2 023 (ननधाारण वषा / Asses s m ent Years :2008-2009 & 2009-2010) M/s Lalita Distributors, Plot No.1B/25 Kanta Niket, Sector-11, CDA,Cuttack-753015 Vs ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack PAN No. :AAAFL 4725 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri A.Mohanty, Advocate assisted by Shri Rithik Kedia, Intern राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R ITA No.191/CTK/2023 is filed by the assessee against the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 29.09.2022, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046093784(1) for the assessment year 2008-2009. And, ITA No.192/CTK/2023 is field by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Cuttack, dated 25.01.2019, passed in IT Appeal No.0342/2015-16 for the assessment year 2009- 2010. 2. First we shall take up the appeal of the assessee filed in ITA No.191/CTK/2023 for the assessment year 2008-2009, wherein the Registry has pointed out 165 days of delay in filing the same before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay therein. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. In view of ITA Nos.191&192/CTK/2023 2 the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 165 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issue in appeal relates to the write off of bad debts of Rs.50,000/-. It was the submission that the Tribunal has restored the issues to the file of ld. AO for verification as to whether the commission income which was written off as bad debts had been offered by the assessee during the earlier assessment years. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the AO had given effect to the order of the Tribunal vide his order u/s.251 of the Act dated 29.09.2015 without giving opportunity to the assessee to prove that the commission income had been offered to tax. It was the further submission that on appeal to the ld.CIT(A) the same was in the physical form but as there was a change in the procedure for filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) into the electronic form and the assessee being ignorant of the procedure had responded to the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) explaining as to why the bad debt is liable to be allowed. It was the submission that consequently the ld. CIT(A) treated the manual appeal filed by the assessee as nonest. It was the submission that the issue may be restored to the file of AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to prove that the commission income had been actually offered to tax as income earlier. ITA Nos.191&192/CTK/2023 3 4. In reply, ld.Sr. DR submitted that the non-filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in the electronic form should not be condoned and the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the rival submission. As it is noticed that the issue as to whether the filing of the appeal in physical form and then to be converted into the electronic form is a technical issue and it is trite law that when technicality is pitted against substantial justice, the substantial justice is to prevail. Further it is noticed that when giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.249/CTK/2014 dated 05.02.2015 the AO vide his order u/s.251 of the Act dated 29.09.2015 had not given opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case even though the Tribunal had categorically given a direction to the AO to verify the claim in the profit and loss account. This being so, in the interest of substantial justice, the issue is restored to the file of AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.191/CTK/2023 for A.Y.2008-2009 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Now, we shall decide the appeal of the assessee filed for A.Y.2009- 2010 in ITA No.192/CTK/2023. In this appeal, ld.AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has not given proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which is in violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, ld. AR submitted that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice. ITA Nos.191&192/CTK/2023 4 7. Ld.Sr.DR objected to the above contention of the ld.AR and submitted that sufficient opportunity was provided by the ld.CIT(A), however, the assessee could not substantiate its claim. Therefore, it was the prayer of the ld. AR that the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has not appeared nor filed any written submission in spite of several opportunities afforded by the ld.CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings, accordingly the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. However, the ld.AR before us submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to produce all the relevant documents and evidences before the ld.CIT(A) to substantiate its claim. In view of the above, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.191/CTK/2023 & 192/CTK/2023 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2023. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 24/07/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. ITA Nos.191&192/CTK/2023 5 आदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आय ु क्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ज पाईऱ / Guard file. सत्यावऩत प्रयत //True Copy//