M/s Golden Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 410/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4796 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.410/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 M/S GOLDEN COMTRADE PVT. LTD., 58/43, BIRHANA ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AACCG1622R VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (SHRI NARPAT JAIN, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 11/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/01/2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 14/05/2015 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-2012. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THEIR MERITS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT HE HAD NO POWER UNDER THE I.T. ACT 1961 TO DECIDE THE APPE AL SUMMARILY. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER T HAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE & SUFFICIENT CAUSE DUE TO WHICH TH E 2 APPELLANT COULD NOT REPRESENT THE APPEAL PROCEEDING S BEFORE CIT(A). 4. THAT ON MERIT OF THE CASE, NO ADDITION U/S 14A AMOUNTING TO RS.3,59,948/- WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE: (I) THERE WAS NO SATISFACTION OF THE AO BEFORE INV OKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A. (II) THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FRE E FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN EXEMPTED ASSET. 5. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50000/- OUT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES & RS.100000/- OUT OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS AR E UNJUSTIFIED BECAUSE THEY WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY. 6. IN ANY CASE & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GRO UNDS, THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED ARE MUCH TOO ARE HIGH & EXCESSIVE. 7. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW, FACTS & PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE I N WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE NOT PROVIDED BY LEARNED CIT (A) AND HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT ALTHOUGH SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY CIT(A) BUT E VEN WHILE PASSING THE ORDER EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE, HE SHOULD HAVE DEC IDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE AND UNDE R THESE FACTS, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION AFTE R PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE 3 MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WE ARE NOT MAKIN G ANY COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:15/01/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT . REGISTRAR