SUYOGI ENTERPRIESES, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 32(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4656/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1357 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4656 & 4657/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11) SUYOGI ENTERPRISES, PLOT NO.269-289, RSC 31, NEAR PEPSI GROUND, GORAI II, BORIVALI (WEST), MUMBAI 400 091. ...... APPE LLANT PAN: AANFS 9523R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(3)(4), MUMBAI .... RE SPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : MS. BEENA SANTOSH DATE OF HEARING : 29/12/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/12/2016 ORDER THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PE RTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ERS PASSED BY CIT(A)-44, MUMBAI DATED 18/03/2013, WHICH IN TURN, ARISE OUT OF ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 25/03/2013. 2. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE STATED ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT BY REGISTERED P OST, WHICH HAS COME BACK AS UNCLAIMED. AS A CONSEQUENCE, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS, EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE ON MERITS AS PER RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. 2 ITA NO.4656 & 4657/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11) 3. IN BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISS ED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE NOTICING THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE INSPI TE OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAVING BEEN ISSUED. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS. HOWEVER, THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE A CT IS THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING BY STATING THE POI NT FOR DETERMINATION AND THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) SHOW THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN CULLED OUT AND ADJUDICATED, WHEREAS T HE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED MERELY NOTICING THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESS EE. 4. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HA VE DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS IN TERMS OF THE MANDATE OF SECTION 250(6) O F THE ACT AND NOT IN A SUMMARY MANNER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WITHOU T GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED, THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE S E-ASIDE AND THE APPEALS ARE RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD AS PER LAW. AS A CONSEQUENCE, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/12/2016 SD/- (G.S.PANNU) ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 29/12/2016 VM , SR. PS 3 ITA NO.4656 & 4657/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI