J. SQUARE STEELS P.LTD, AURANGABAD V. ITO WD 16(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 371/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 37119914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBODH RATNAPARKHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.371/MUM/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 M/S. SQUARE STEELS PVT. LTD., GUT NO.850 24KM, BIDKIN, TAL PALTHAN, DIST. AURANGABAD 431007 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1) (4), MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. :AABCJ 5962E ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI SUBODH RATNAPARKHI RESPONDENT BY SHRI AKHILENDRA YADAV ' #$ / DATE OF HEARING : 05/08/2015 ' #$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/08/2015 / O R D E R PER G.S.PANNU, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03/10/2013 PAS SED BY LD. CIT(A)-14, MUMBAI PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, W ITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/12/2010 PASSED IN TERMS O F SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT). 2. ALTHOUGH, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST PLEA RAISED IS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE. IN THIS CONTEXT, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE . / ITA NO.371/MUM/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 2 ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), THE ADDRESS OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY WAS CHANGED, WHICH WAS ALSO INFORMED TO THE CIT(A). LD. REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DATED 7/ 7/2015, WHEREBY IT IS AVERRED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL ISSUED BY LD. CIT(A), FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 17/09/2013 WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY. LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT T HE CIT(A)S ORDER SHOWS THAT ONLY ONE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED, WHICH APPARE NTLY WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND, THEREAFTER APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE SATISFIED, IF THE APPEAL IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH ON MERITS. 3. THE LD. DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT OPP OSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RESTORATION OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A LOS S OF RS.1,97,910/-, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, WHEREBY THE TOT AL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.35,43,850/-, AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. WHI LE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNRELIABLE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAID REASON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER M ADE AN ADDITION OF RS.37,41,756/TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE APPE AL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), HAS BEEN DISMISSED PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM. 5. BEFORE US, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT ONLY ONE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED BY CIT(A), WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED AND, THER EFORE, ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE FROM PUTTING IN APPEARANCE BEFORE THE . / ITA NO.371/MUM/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 3 CIT(A). THE BONAFIDES OF THE REASON ADVANCED BY T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ASSAILED BY THE REVENUE. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT T HE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAND ATE OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, WHICH OBLIGATES HIM TO CONSIDER THE POINTS IN APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. OSTENSIBLY, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT INDEPENDENTLY APPRAISED THE REASONS ADVANCED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS AFFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT PRIMARILY NOTICING THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. 6. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, I T WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WHO SHALL ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE ME RITS OF THE ADDITION ASSAILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE HEREBY SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUD ICATION AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D AS PER LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS ABOVE. 9. THE ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 0 5/08/2015. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/08/2015 ' *+ ,- 05/08/2015 ' SD/- SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG ) ( . . / G.S.PANNU ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * MUMBAI; , DATED 05/08/2015 . / ITA NO.371/MUM/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 4 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0# ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 0# / CIT 5. 12 #34 , $ 34 , * / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 1# # //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , * / ITAT, MUMBAI . . ./ VM , SR. PS