M/s Innovative Studios Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. The Additional Commissioner of Income TAx Range-11 , Bangalore

ITA 2208/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1083 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S V RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 2208 TO 2212/ BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 10 - 11, 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 M/S. INNOVATIVE STUDIOS PVT. LTD., NO. 35, OUTER RING ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE 560 037. PAN: AABCI3049K VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 11, BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.V. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE RE VENUE BY : DR. P.V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 25 . 0 7 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 . 0 9 .2018 O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THESE FIVE APPEALS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST 5 SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), OUT OF WHICH 3 APPEALS ARE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 INVOLVING THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF PENALTY U/S. 271( 1)(C), 271D AND 271E OF IT ACT AND THE REMAINING TWO APPEALS ARE FOR ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 AND THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST REMAININ G TWO ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 IN RESPECT OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF IT ACT. ALL THESE 5 ORDERS A RE PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-2, BANGALORE ALL DATED 17.08.2017. IT IS ALSO SEEN TH AT ALL THESE 5 ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. VARIOUS GROU NDS ARE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN EACH OF THESE APPEALS BUT AT THE VERY OUTSET, TH IS WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THESE FIVE ORDERS OF CIT (A) HAD BEEN PASSED EX-PAR TE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTERS MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. 2. THE BENCH POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF C IT (A), VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY CIT (A) TO ASSESSEE BUT ON EACH DA TE, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ON THREE DATES I.E. 28.1 2.2016, 22.02.2017 AND 31.07.2017, THERE WERE NO RESPONSE. THE BENCH OBSE RVED THAT UNDER THESE ITA NOS. 2208 TO 2212/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 FACTS, EVEN IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY COST OF RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH APPEAL FOR DETERRING EFFECT ON THIS ASSESSEE IN PAR TICULAR AND ALL ASSESSEE IN GENERAL TO HAVE THE PRACTICE OF NON COMPLIANCE BEFO RE CIT (A). THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF SUCH COST IS IMPOSED. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE SUFFICIENT OPPOR TUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY MORE OPPO RTUNITY. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT (A) IN PARA 2 OF ALL THESE ORDERS THAT SHE HAS PROV IDED 8 OPPORTUNITIES TO ASSESSEE FOR HEARING AND OUT OF THE SAME, THERE WER E NO RESPONSE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THREE OCCASIONS I.E. 28.12.2016, 22.02. 2017 AND 31.07.2017 AND ON THE REMAINING 5 DATES, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HA S SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT ALTHOUGH IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE ASSE SSEE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BUT SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS. 10,00 0/- FOR EACH APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THESE FIVE ORDERS OF CIT( A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION SUBJECT TO PAYM ENT OF COST BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 10,000/- FOR EACH APPEAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM TH E DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION I S CALLED FOR ON MERIT AT THE PRESENT STAGE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. /MS/ ITA NOS. 2208 TO 2212/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.