Wirecard India Pvt Ltd, Chennai V. ACIT, Corp Cir-3(2), Chennai

ITA 201/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2640 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 43

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI . . , . , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.201/CHNY/2019 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 M/S.WIRECARD INDIA PVT. LTD., 301, CAMPUS 3B, RMZ MILLENIA BUSINESS PARK 2, NO.143, MGR MAIN ROAD, KANDANCHAVADI, CHENNAI-600 096. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI. [PAN: AADCV 0520 C] ( # /APPELLANT) ( $%# /RESPONDENT) # & / APPELLANT BY : MR. N.V.BALAJI, ADV. $%# & /RESPONDENT BY : MR. AR.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT & /DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2019 & /DT. OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.08.2019 / O R D E R PER SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.64/(T )/CIT(A)-7/2017-18 DATED 29.11.2018 FOR THE AY 2015-16. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2015-16 ON 30.11.2015 A DMITTING INCOME OF RS.2,46,52,420/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143 (1). THE RETURN WAS ITA NO.201/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND AFTER CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143( 3) BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE BAD DE BTS WRITTEN OFF RS.1,25,66,665/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER SINCE THE AS SESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) DAT ED 29.11.2018, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED THE ORDER ON MERITS AN D HE HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANY OF THESE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E. BUT SIMPLY, HE PASSED AN ORDER SAYING THAT LOOKING AT THE CHRONOL OGICAL HISTORY, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT ON THE TWO OCCASIONS POSTED FOR HEARI NG, ON ONE OCCASION THE NOTICE GOT RETURNED UNSERVED AND ON THE OTHER O CCASION WHEN THE NOTICE WAS SERVED IN THE NEW ADDRESS, THE SAME WAS ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT BUT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION EITHER BY THE ASSES SEE OR BY THE LD.AR ON ITA NO.201/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 7. CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A), NO DOUB T, THE LD.CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE I SSUES ON MERITS, IN ORDER TO MEET THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO SU BSTANTIATE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT( A) FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT ASKING UNNECESSARY ADJOU RNMENTS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( - . . . / ) (DUVVURU R.L. REDDY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 26 TH AUGUST, 2019. TLN & $23 43 /COPY TO: 1. # /APPELLANT 4. 5 /CIT 2. $%# /RESPONDENT 5. 3 $ /DR 3. 5 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF