MERU IMPEX, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 15(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2566/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7961 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS JYOTILAKSHMI NAYAK

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JM) I.T.A. NO. 2566 /MUM/ 2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 1 0 ) M/S. MERU IMPLEX 15, 1 ST AGIARY LANE OSMAN MANZIL 2 ND FLOOR MUMBAI - 400 003. VS. ADDL. CIT - 15 (1) MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAAFM6289K ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY MRS. JYOTILAKSHMI NAYAK DATE OF HEARING 21 .3 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 .3 . 201 7 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 21.2 .2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 26 , CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF ` 3.34 CRORES. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LOSS AND DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME AT NIL FIGURE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO LEVIED A PENALTY OF ` 1.13 CRORES ON THE ADDI TION SO MADE BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDER BY FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). MERU IMPEX 2 SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4. AGGRIEVED WITH T HE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AS STATED EARLIER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE, AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM. IN OUR VIEW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS APPEAL NEEDS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WIT H THE DIRECTION TO DISPO SE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER SERVING DUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE LD CIT(A) FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONO UNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 .3. 201 7. SD/ - SD/ - (RAVISH SOOD ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 21 / 3 / 20 1 7 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) PS ITAT, MUMBAI