OPTIMYSTIX ENTERTAINMENT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT (TDS) RG 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2370/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2453 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R C JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK RIPOTE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 246

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 2370 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) OPTIMYSTIX ENTERTAINMENT INDIA PVT. LTD., 21,SPV NAGAR JANKI DEVI PUBLIC SCHOOL, NEAR VERSOVA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI 400 053 PAN: AAACO 4359H ... APPELLANT VS. THE ACIT, RANGE 10(3)(1), MUMBAI. .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.C.JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK RIPOTE DATE OF HEARING : 19/07/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/07/2016 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORD ER PASSED BY CIT(A)- 60, MUMBAI DATED 08/01/2015 WHICH IN TURN ARISES OU T OF AN INTIMATION DATED 1/7/2011 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE A PPEAL IN LAW WITHOUT GIVING A HEARING TO THE APPELLANT. 1.1 THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEA L WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 246A OF ACT. 2 ITA NO. 2370 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) 2.THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE A PPEAL AND DISPOSED OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL INFORM 35. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND IS, INTER-ALIA, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION O F TELEVISION SERIALS. DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, ASSESSEE WAS REQ UIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE BY IT AS PER REL EVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED AN INTIMAT ION DATED 1/7/2011 UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, WHEREBY IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHORT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN CERTAIN CASES AND I NTEREST IN SUCH CASES WAS ALSO CHARGED FOR SUCH SHORTFALL IN DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT WAS CHALLE NGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. AS PER CIT(A), AN INTIMATION PASSED UNDER SECTION 200A WAS NOT AN APPEALABLE ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 246 A OF THE ACT AND THUS, SUCH AN APPEAL WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. AGAINST SUCH A DECISION, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE US, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AFFOR DING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) B E DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE ADJUD ICATING ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL. IT WAS THUS, CONTEN DED THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. 5. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT OPPOSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RESTORATION OF THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR THE ABOVE REASON. 3 ITA NO. 2370 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) 6. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND FIND THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF W ITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE ANOPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, EVEN ON THE ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. SINCE THE SAID APPROACH IS CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE, WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET- ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BA CK TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL AFRESH , I NCLUDING ITS MAINTAINABILITY, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED , AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/07/2016 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22/07/2016 VM , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI