M/s. IPC Packaging Company Private Limited, Bengaluru V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2705/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4831 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R RAMESH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SHANKAR ADOVCATE
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2705/BANG/20 17 (ASST. YEAR 2013-14) M/S. IPC PACKAGING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD., #4909, 9 TH FLOOR, HIGH POINT IV, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE- 560001. PAN: AABCI8890E . APPELLANT VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI. RAVI SHANKAR, ADOVCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.R. RAMESH, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 09-04-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-04-2018 O R D E R PER SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9/11/2017 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 3 BENGALURU RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF POLYPROPYLENE WOVEN FABRICS. AN ORDER OF A SSESSMENT DATED 29/3/2016 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (ACT) WAS PAS SED BY THE AO DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT LOSS OF RS.48, 37,722/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.62,98,827/-. THE RETURNED LOSS WAS REDU CED BECAUSE OF DISALLOWANCE ITA 2705/B/17 2 MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. AGAINST TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL MANUALLY BEFORE THE CIT(A ) ON 25/4/2016. AS PER SECTION 249(1) R.W. RULE 45 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962 (RULES), THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO FILE APPEAL IN FORM NO.35, IN ELECTR ONIC FORM. THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A) BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSE THAT AP PEAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN ELECTRONIC FORM AND NOT PHYSICAL FORM. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 9/11/2017. ON THAT DATE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SA TISFY THE CIT(A) THAT AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 29/3/2106 U/S 14 3(3) OF THE ACT IN ELECTRONIC FORM. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE AS IT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 45 OF THE RULES I.E NOT FILED IN ELECTRONIC FORM. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NO TICE BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNE D ORDER ON 9.11.2017. ON 11/11/2017 THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED APPEAL IN A ELECTRONIC FORM. THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 1 5.11.2017. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE HEARING ON 9.11.2017, H E WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL AND ALSO COULD NOT BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) THAT APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED IN ELECTRONIC FORM. A COPY O F THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR FILING APPEAL IN ELECTRONIC FORM WAS ALSO FILED BEF ORE US. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN ELECT RONIC FORM SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED ON MERI TS. 5. LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA 2705/B/17 3 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO TREAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ELECTRONIC FORM ON 11/11/2017 AS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R U/S 143(3) DATED 29/3/2016. THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH APRIL, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (N. V VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER BANGALORE DATED :11/4/2018 VMS COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER SR. PRIVAT E SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA 2705/B/17 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR. P. S... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT.. 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. ..