SAPANA ANIL BHASIN, MUMBAI V. CIT (A), DELHI

ITA 1980/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sapna Anil Bhasin, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A) regarding various disallowances made during the assessment year 2014-15. The disallowances included expenses related to delayed payments, penalties, and purchases not recorded as fixed assets. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, which the appellant contested, citing the absence of an authorized representative and technical difficulties in uploading required documents. The ITAT, after reviewing the submissions and the circumstances, decided to remand the case for a fresh assessment, acknowledging the procedural lapses and the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130097 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH KISHINCHANDANI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL BHASIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 37; 144; 143(2)

Judgement Text

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1980/Mum/2023 Sapna Anil Bhasin Vs. CIT(A) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1980/Mum/2023 (A.Y 2014-15) Sapna Anil Bhasin 522, B Krishna Niwas, 3 rd Floor, R.P. Masani Road, Matunga, Maharashtra – 400019 Vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACXPB1308H Respondent .. Appellant Appellant by : Anil Bhasin Respondent by : Prakash Kishinchandani Date of Hearing 06.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 28.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, dated 16.03.2023 for 2014- 15. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us: “1. I paid the interest and penalty to Bharat Petroleum corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for delayed of purchase payment, due previous outstanding and delayed in purchased payment BPCL imposed above said interest and penalty, we attached here with the ledger of Delay interest payment & Penalty for FY 2013-14. Hence, the statement of facts. 2. I incurred Rs.39,500/- for purchase CCTV Camera, the said purchase use for security purpose of my petrol pump, but said purchased in not covered with any guarantee, that the said CCTV Camera is Electrical good so the damage can be occurs hence it was not shown in the fixed assets. We herewith attached the copy of said purchase ledger for F.Y.2013-14 and Invoice copy. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1980/Mum/2023 Sapna Anil Bhasin Vs. CIT(A) 3. The Staff welfare expenses and other expenses disallowed by the Assessing officer, I used above said expenses only for the business purpose. As per section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Expressed: Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assesses, laid out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profit and Gains of business or profession. 4. As per the balance sheet for F.Y.2013-14, shows the Sundry Creditors of Rs.12,80,000/-, We herewith attached the ledgers of above Said Creditors and bank statement that closing balance paid. 5. I paid to M/s BPCL deducted in fuel purchase invoice (License fee recovery) for purchase fuel, hence the said charges expressed as the expenses in Profit & Loss Account for A.Y.2014-15, we herewith attached the ledger of above said expenses and sample invoices. 6. The amount of Rs.1,54,651/-shown as Sundry Balance written off (Bad Debts) are disallowed by the Assessing Officer, that as per the section 36(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Expressed as: Section 36(1) (vii) subject to its proviso, explanation and subject to the provisions of section 36(2), allow deduction for the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the for the previous year while computing total income of assesses for that previous year.” 2. The appeal filed by the assesse is time barred by 14 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that due to expiry of his father her daughter has filed this appeal therefore, there was small delay in filing the appeal. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The marginal delay in filing the impugned appeal by 14 days is condoned on the ground that because of the death of the assessee his legal heir has filed the appeal. 4. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.17,55,890/- was filed on 30.11.2014. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.09.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee has not made any compliance, therefore, the assessing officer has completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act after making disallowance P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1980/Mum/2023 Sapna Anil Bhasin Vs. CIT(A) u/s 141(1) of Rs.6,40,013/-. Licence fee recovery Rs.1,94,067/-, sundry balance written off Rs.1,54,651/- delay interest payment and MDG penalty Rs.15,870/- CCTV camera Rs.39,500/- disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,40,422/-. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not made any compliance to the notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings before me the representative of the assessee submitted that there was no authorised representative appointed by the assessee, therefore, required detail could not be uploaded on the portal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel further referred page no. 21 to 146 of the submission placed on the paper book and submitted that same were filed before the ld. CIT(A) but these were not considered by the ld. CIT(A) before the adjudication of the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has not made any compliance, therefore, the AO has finalised the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and various additions have been made as referred above for want of detail from the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that assesse has not made compliance during the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before me the ld. Counsel submitted that various details could not be uploaded as no authorised representative was appointed by the assesse, however, assessee had uploaded the various details as placed in the paper book from page no. 21 to 146, but the ld. CIT(A) had not considered all these details before P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1980/Mum/2023 Sapna Anil Bhasin Vs. CIT(A) adjudicating the case of the assessee. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I consider that the assessee could not upload the detail on the portal as no person equipped with technical knowledge deployed by the assessee. However, the assesse claimed that she had made submission before the ld. CIT(A) as per the submission placed in the Paper Book page no. 21 to 146 and the same was not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore in the interest of justice I restore this case to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after affording adequate opportunity to the ld. CIT(A). The assesse is directed to make compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure. Accordingly, ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. in the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.09.2023 Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 28.09.2023 Rohit: PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.