HATHWAY MEDIA VISION PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2152/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59749 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SHASTRI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI V. DU RGA RAO, J.M. S. NO. ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 2149/M/11 2006-07 HATHWAY VCN CABLENET PVT. LTD.,RAHEJAS, 4 TH FLOOR, CORNERS OF MAIN AVENUE & V.P. ROAD, SANTA CRUZ(WEST), MUMBAI 54. (PAN AAACP2729A) THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 2. 2150/M/11 2006-07 HATHWAY SUKHAMRIT CABLE & DATACOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI-54 (PAN AAACH3937R) -DO- 3 2151/M/11 2006-07 HATHWAY NASHIK CABLE NETWORK PVT. LTD., MUMBAI 54. (PAN AAACP2729A) -DO- 4 2152/M/11 2006-07 HATHWAY MEDIA VISION PVT. LTD., MUMBAI 54 (PAN AAACU0996N) -DO- APPELLANT BY : MR. NITESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : MR. V.V. SHASTRI DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/01/2012 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: THESE APPEALS PERTAINING TO HATHWAY GROUP OF COMPA NIES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006- 07. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS. 2149, 2150, & 2152/MUM/2011 2. A COMMON GROUND RAISED IN THESE APPEALS PERTAINI NG TO DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS. 2149 TO 2152/MUM/2011 2 3. TO DISPOSE OFF THESE APPEALS, WE REFER TO THE FA CTS IN ITA NO. 2149/MUM/2011. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CABLE NETWORK SERVICES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 33,65,584/-.SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CAS E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE NET LOSS WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 32,87,220/-. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BAD DEBT S WRITTEN OFF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 44,857/-, FOR WHICH NO SUPPORT ING EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS. T HE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 08/11/2008 HAD ONLY FILED DETAILS WITH REGARD TO PARTIES FROM THE MONIES WERE RECEIVABLE AND NO DETAILS LIKE THE TERM FROM WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS OUTSTANDING AND THE YEAR IN WHICH THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS WERE O FFERED TO TAX WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FINDINGS, THE AO DISALLOWED THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF OF RS. 44,857/ -. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A). 4. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 2 & 3 AND AFTER CONSID ERING THE SAME, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO AND NOW THE ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED SOME OF THE DETAILS AND WAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO WHY THESE DETAI LS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ORDER O F THE AO REJECTING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. STIL L AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES A ND SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT O F BAD DEBTS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FILED, VIZ., LEDGER ACCOUNT, A ND STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE POSITION REGARDING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE ONLY TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT WA S SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, IT DID NOT FILE ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS SUBMIT TED THAT DOCUMENTS AT PAGES 2 & 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE THE STATEMENT FILED 2149 TO 2152/MUM/2011 3 BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE PA RTIES AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. IT IS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS COULD NOT FILE BEFORE THE A O AS THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT THAT THE DETAILS SOUGHT BY HIM HAD BEEN FILED AND NO FURTHER CLARIFICATION WAS SOUGHT BY HIM IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE . 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTI ON IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE BENCH. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECO RD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE IS SUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ALLOWABILITY OF THE C LAIM OF BAD DEBTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE VIDE PAG ES 1 TO 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE DE TAILS FILED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK ARE NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THESE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO ARE PROPER. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT G IVING ANY PROPER REASON. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AF TER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 8. SINCE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN ITA NOS. 2150 & 2152/MUM/2011 TO THAT OF ITA NO. 2149/MUM/2011, FOL LOWING THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN IN 2149/MUM/2011(SUPRA), WE SET A SIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE A O WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS. 2149 TO 2152/MUM/2011 4 ITA NO. 2151/MUM/2011 9. THIS APPEAL ALSO SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE THREE APPE ALS AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T HAT ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF THE BAD DEBTS WERE F ILED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) AND BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE RE NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE AO TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRES H. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS NO OBJECTION TO REMIT TH E ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 10. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE SAID APPEALS (SU PRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (V. DU RGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: JANUARY, 2012 KV 2149 TO 2152/MUM/2011 5 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, H BENCH, I.T .A.T., MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., MUMBAI.