M/s Fieldez Technologies Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2364/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7801 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L V BHASKAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2364/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S. FIELDEZ TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., 8/2, NOVELL OFFICE CENTRAL, 3 RD FLOOR, ULSOOR ROAD, OFF MG ROAD, BANGALORE 560042. PAN: AABCF 8516 G VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. V. RAVISHANKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI. L. V. BHASKAR REDDY, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 04.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.04.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-3, BANGALORE, DATED 22.6.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DECLARING THE LOSS OF RS. 3 018 4998/-THE ASSESSING OFFICERS PASS THE ORDER AFTER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS ALSO RAISED ON 23/12/2016.. ITA NO. 2364/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED IN 2 1.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A)-3 BANGALORE. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON LIMITATIO N AS THERE WAS A DELAY OF 189 DAYS FOR PRESENTING THE APPEAL. THE COMMISSIONER RE LIED UPON VARIOUS DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE MADRAS CHIEF POSTMASTER GEN VERSUS LIVING MEDIA LTD. 3. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL O RDER OF CIT (A), BANGALORE, DATED 22.6.2018 HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL ON VARIOUS GROUNDS MENTION IN THE FORM 36. 4. GROUND NOS. 3-6 4.1 IN THESE GROUNDS (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL ON THE TECHNICAL GROUNDS. IT WA S CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN THE SERVICES OF THE GOOD PR OFESSIONAL FOR APPEALING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALL ACTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE ASSESSEE ONLY CAME TO KNOW ABOUT TH E NON-FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHEN THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ADVICE FROM THE COUNSEL AND FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER ALLOWS WITH CONDONAT ION OF DELAY APPLICATION .THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSE SSEE IS NORMAL AND THERE WAS NO UNDUE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISS IONER AFTER THE DEMAND NOTICE CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED AR WAS HEARD AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS PUT FORTH IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FORMING PART OF THE APPEAL. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ULTIMATE OBJECT OF ASSES SMENT BEING THAT THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS PRAYED BY THE LEARNED ITA NO. 2364/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 AR THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASI DE AND MATTER RESTORED TO FILE OF CIT(A) FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 4.2 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DR FOR REVENUE SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY BOTH LEARNED DR FOR REVENUE AND THE LEARNED AR OF T HE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) DI SMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSI ONER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE CIT(A)-III, BANGALORE AND THE ASSE SSEE DID ATTENDED THE HEARINGS ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER WITHIN THE STATU TORY PERIOD AS PROVIDED BY ACT AND THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DISMISS ING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT .IN FACT IT WAS IN CUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER TO EXAMINE THE FACTS BROUGHT ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUP PORT OF NOT FURNISHING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AND PASS REASONED ORDER IN THIS REGARD. THE COMMISSIONER WITHOUT DOING THE NEEDFUL HAD DISMISSE D THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE MERELY RELYING UPON SOME JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENT BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW T HAT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN VARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENT IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ON THE BASIS OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID JUDGEMENTS IN THE FACTS OF THOSE CASES DECIDED BY THE COURT AND SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED AS A STATUTE WITHO UT LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE . TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS OF THE MATTER AND IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THIS PLEA O F ASSESSEE, AS IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD INTENTIONALLY OR DELIBERATE LY NOT PREFER THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A); AS THIS WOULD CAUSE IMMENSE HARM TO HIS OWN INTERESTS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY ADJU DICATION ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). SINCE THE ULTIMATE AIM O F THE ASSESSMENT IS THAT ONLY THE CORRECT TAXES DUE BY THE ASSESSEE BE COLLECTED BY R EVENUE, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS ITA NO. 2364/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 5 IMPERATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT(A) BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS. 4.3.2 IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE WELL SERVED IF THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 22.6.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BE SET ASIDE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH HEARINGS, EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE CIT(A) SHA LL AFFORD THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DETAILS/SUBM ISSIONS REQUIRED, WHICH SHALL BE DULY CONSIDERED BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUES. THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COMPLY WITH AND ATTEND THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS 3-6 ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE REFRAIN FROM COMMENTING ON OR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES RAISED ON TECHNICAL ISSUES/MERITS IN GROUNDS AT NOS. 1,2 AND 7 TO 14 OF THIS APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2014-15 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 24 TH APRIL, 2019. /NS/* ITA NO. 2364/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.