M/s Pacific Internet India Private Limited , Bangalore V. The Deputy Commissioner of Incoem Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 288/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7627 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R RAMESH
• Assessee Lawyers: APARNA BHANDARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.288/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. PACIFIC INTERNET INDIA PVT. LTD., UNIT 2, FIRST FLOOR, INNOVATOR BLOCK, ITPL, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BENGALURU-560066. PAN : AABCP 2053 Q VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. APARNA BHANDARI, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. B. R. RAMESH, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 13.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A), INTER ALIA , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: GROUND NO. 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN INITIATING P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WIT HOUT RECORDING ANY ADEQUATE REASON FOR SUCH INITIATION A ND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. GROUND NO. 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE ON ME RIT ON THE ITA NO. 288/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 GROUND THAT IN SPITE OF SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE APPELLANT, HE HAD REMAINED UNAVAILABLE. GROUND NO. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CONDON E THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE CONSIDERED DISCRETELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE HAS M OVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL TO WHICH THE REVENUE HAS N O OBJECTION. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED:15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. /NSHYLU/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE. (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER