MICRONET DATA SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 5(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2409/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8461 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S SRIVASTAV
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, J.M. AND SHRI RAJENDRA SI NGH, A.M. I.T.A. NO.2409/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. MICRONET DATA SERVICES P. LTD. 108, UNITED INDL. ESTATE, MOGHUL LANE, MAHIM MUMBAI- 400 016 P.A. NO: AADCM97001 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(2)(3) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S. SRIVASTAV ORDER PER D.K. AGARWAL, J.M: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS CASE NOTICE FIXING THE HEARING OF THE CA SE ON 07.02.2011 AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36 SENT BY RPAD WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMA RK LEFT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESS EE, WE TREAT IT AS SERVED. EVEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESEN T ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPARTE -QUA THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,57,758/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 1 43(2) OF THE INCOME M/S. MICRONET DATA SERVICES P.LTD. ITA N.2409/MUM/2010 2 TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WAS ISSUED FOLLOWED BY NOTI CE U/S.142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLIANC E BY THE ASSESSEE, EXCEPT SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED EXPARTE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.26,74,685/- VIDE ORDE R DATED 12.12.2008 PASSED U/S.144 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, AGAIN THERE W AS NO COMPLIANCE EXCEPT SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO PA SSED EXPARTE ORDER WHEREIN HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,427/ - AND CONFIRMED ALL OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING IN ALL THE GROUNDS THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTENANCE OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DR WHILE RELYING ON T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) FURTHER SUBMITS TH AT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF TH E ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER MADE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE DO AGREE THA T THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY CLEMENCY YET, THE MATTER BEING QUITE CO NTENTIOUS AND THE MANY ISSUES ARE INVOLVED. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND REASONABLE THAT THE MATTER SHO ULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ACCOUNT AND SEND BA CK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AND ACCORDING TO THE LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE REMAINS RECALCITRANT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE AT LIB ERTY TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE AS HE DEEMS FIT AND DECIDE THE CASE ACCOR DINGLY. THE GROUNDS M/S. MICRONET DATA SERVICES P.LTD. ITA N.2409/MUM/2010 3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) (D.K. A GARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. ROSHANI COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, I - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI