VSL INFOTAINMENT LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2115/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3545 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A P SINGH
• Section: 144; 15

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F MUMBAI . . , / BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND . , SHRI D.KARUNAKAR RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.2115/MUM/2012 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/S. VSL INFOTAINMENT LTD., C/O. O.G. SONI & CO. 419, HIND RAJASTHAN BUILDING, D.S. PHALKE ROAD, DADAR (E), MUMBAI - 14. ! ! ! ! / VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI - 20. # ./ $% ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACV3782B ( #& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '(#& / RESPONDENT ) #& ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI NONE '(#& * ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.P.SINGH ! * + / DATE OF HEARING : 28/05/2013 ,-' * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/05/2013 . / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-18 MUMBAI DATED 25/11/20 11 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE GROUND OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE . / ITA NO.1733/MUM/2012 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 2 LOSS OF RS.20,64,17,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SUBMISS ION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DAT ED 30/11/2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1, WHEREIN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT NIL AGAINST THE RET URNED LOSS OF RS.20,64,17,000/-. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS PER NOTE GIVEN ALONGWITH THE RETURN IT WAS MENT IONED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY IS A SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY AND A RE FERENCE IS GOING TO BE MADE TO THE BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECO NSTRUCTION (BIFR) UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIA L PROVISIONS) ACT 1985. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O. THEREFORE , THE LOSS WAS DISALLOWED AND ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AT NIL INCOME. 3. AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT( A) REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE A.O FOR VERIFICATION OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN TH E REMAND REPORT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NO ONE ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO MENTIO NED THAT SEVERAL NOTICES OF HEARING WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED U N-COMPLIED. AFTER REFERRING THOSE NOTICES LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED TH E APPEAL FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ATTENDANCE WITHOUT DISCU SSING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROU GH RPAD, WHICH HAS BEEN SERVED AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLACED ON RECOR D. HOWEVER, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 5. LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEVER REPRES ENTED EITHER BEFORE AO OR LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT APPEAR IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DISMISSING THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. . / ITA NO.1733/MUM/2012 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). AS POIN TED OUT EARLIER LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF NON-ATTENDANCE. HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN IN THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) THAT WHETHER NOTICES OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WERE EVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. NEVERTHELESS, ACCORDING TO MANDATE OF SECTION 250(6 ), LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO MAK E THE ORDER IN WRITING, STATING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AND THE REASON S THEREON FOR SUCH DECISION. THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT FULFILL THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN IN SECTION 250(6). THEREFORE, SUCH AN ORDER CANNOT BE UPHELD. KEEPING IN VIEW THE MANDATE OF AFOREMENTIONED PROVISION, WE CONSIDE R IT JUST AND PROPER TO RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANDATE OF SECTION 250(6) AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON MERITS AS THE SAME HAS TO BE RECONSIDERE D BY LD. CIT(A). WITH THESE DIRECTIONS THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD . CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/05/201 3 . * ,-' / 0!1 28/05/2013 - * 2 3 SD/- SD/- ( . / D.KARUNAKAR RAO ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 0! DATED 28/05/2013 . / ITA NO.1733/MUM/2012 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 4 . . . . * ** * '+45 '+45 '+45 '+45 65'+ 65'+ 65'+ 65'+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(#& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 7 / CIT 5. 582 '+! , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 2 9 / GUARD FILE. .! .! .! .! / BY ORDER, (5+ '+ //TRUE COPY// : :: : / ; ; ; ; $ $ $ $ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . ! . ./ VM , SR. PS