Marathon Money Market Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 3677/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2804 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIL JAIN; FCD
• Assessee Lawyers: SARAS KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX PPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH FRIDAY / A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3677/DEL/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) MARATHON MONEY MARKET LTD., 183, CRIPA MARG, SAINIK FARM, NEW DELHI 110 019 PAN: AAACM 7888 F VS DDIT CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI AMIL JAIN, FCD ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SARAS KUMAR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING:06.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:06.03.2019 O R D E R PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 37, NEW DELHI (LD. CIT(A)) FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2015-16. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS BROUGHT OUR NOTICE THAT THE LEARNED AR WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) EX-PARTE WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE BY NOTING THAT NONE WAS PRESENT FOR PAGE | 2 THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING THE COUNSEL APPEARED BUT EITHER BY MISTAKE OR ERRONEOUSLY THE PRESENCE OF THE ADVOCATE IS NOT NOTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES WHERE THE COUNSEL COULD MARK THEIR APPEARANCE. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR ARE NOT REFLECTED ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES THERE WAS NO COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DR, HOWEVER, FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT SINCE THE ENDEAVOR OF THE DEPARTMENT IS TO ASSESS THE JUST TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREFORE,HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON THE EITHER SIDE. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT COULD BE SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED SEVERAL DATES OF HEARING FIXED IN THIS APPEAL, AND NOTING THAT THERE WAS NO CORPORATION FROM THE ASSESSEE,HE OBSERVED THAT THE IRREDUCIBLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT THE ASSESSEE LOST INTEREST IN THIS MATTER. 5. BE THAT AS IT MAY, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS FREE TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER, BUT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW IS THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF ON MERITS INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT IN LUMINE . NOTHING PREVENTS THE LD. CIT(A) FROM ADVERTING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS COULD BE CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORD AND REACH A REASONABLE CONCLUSION BY ASSIGNING REASONS.FOR WANT OF REASONS,WE ARE UNABLE TO ASSESS THE MERITS OF CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE PAGE | 3 IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DISPOSAL AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, BUT ON MERITS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT PROCEED EX-PARTE. WHAT ALL WE SAY IS THAT THE DISPOSAL ORDER SHALL CONTAIN THE REASONS FOR CONCLUSIONS. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 MARCH, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( G.S. PANNU) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06 MARCH, 2020. PY* COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI