SHODEN DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3199/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3746 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KARDA M
• Assessee Lawyers: GOVIND JHAVERI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO. 3199 /MUM/20 15 : (A.Y : 20 11 - 12 ) M/S. SHODEN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 514, DALAMAL TOWERS, 211 - FDJ MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. ( APPELLANT ) PAN : AAMCS2236F VS. ITO - 3(3)(2), MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GOVIND JHAVERI REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. KARDAM DATE OF HEARING : 20 /0 7 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 /0 8 /2016 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU , AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 8 , MUMBAI DATED 26 . 03 .20 15 , PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 , WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 3 1 . 12 . 20 13 UNDER SECTION 143 ( 3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FIRST AND THE FOREMOST PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE WITHOUT DECIDING ON MERITS OF THE G ROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM. 2 M/S. SHODEN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 3199/MUM/2015 3. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHOSE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WHEREBY THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.2,84,03,720/ - AS AGAINST RETURNED LO SS OF RS.4,039/ - . IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME, WHICH WERE CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEE WA S NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL BECAUSE NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF ISSU ANCE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. 4. BEFORE US, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH DUE TO CERTAIN INADVERTEN T ERROR AND, IN ANY CASE, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS UNJUSTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT DECIDING ON MERITS THE G ROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD BE SATISFIED IF THE APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CI T(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FACTUAL MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HAS ALSO NOT OPPOSED THE PLEA FOR REMANDING THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. QUITE CLEARLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS 3 M/S. SHODEN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 3199/MUM/2015 OF THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM. SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH A DECISION. OSTENSIBLY, TH E CIT(A) IS OBLIGATED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM BY WAY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ADDRESSED, DECISION RENDERED THEREON BY STATING THE REASONS FOR SUCH A D ECISION. THE SAID APPROACH IS CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHEREIN THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE WITHOUT ADVERTING TO THE MERITS OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, ON THIS COUNT ITSELF, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) IS UNSUSTAINABLE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET - ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REMAND THE APPEAL BACK TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 T H AUGUST, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( G.S. PANNU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 1 2 T H AUGUST , 2016 * SSL * 4 M/S. SHODEN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 3199/MUM/2015 COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, I BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI