JAGRUTI SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 4(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4787/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3994 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA (A.M.) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN (J.M.) I.T.A. NO. 4787/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-2005 M/S. JAGRUTI SECURITIES LTD. 16, GUNDECHA CHAMBERS, NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400 023 P.A.NO: AAACJ 1217 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-4(3)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: DR. K. SHIVARAM & SHRI AJAY R. SINGH RESPONDED BY : SHRI MAHD. USMAN O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA (A.M.) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2009 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL )-XV, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS A SHARE BROKER AND MEMBER OF M UMBAI STOCK EXCHANGE AND NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE. IT HAD FIL ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.34,95,390/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT A LOSS OF RS.3,02,102/- INTER ALIA MAKING ADDITION IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ITEMS:- 1. INTEREST CLAIMED U/S.14A RS.27,53,770 2. CAR HIRING CHARGES RS.1,50,000 3. BAD DEBTS RS.2,89,515 2 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PR EFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) WHO BY HIS ORD ER DATED 16.06.2009 (CORRECT DATE APPEARS TO BE 18.06.2009) DISMISSED THE A SSESSEES APPEAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, DR.K.SHIVARAM, FILED BEFORE US A LETTER DATED 18.06. 2009 FROM ASSESSEE ADDRESSED TO CIT(APPEAL) SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CA SE. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE REPLY OF CIT(APPEAL) DATED 18.06.20 09 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE, IN WHICH LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) GAVE DETAILED REA SONS FOR REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF THE ORDER IS 16.06.2009 AND, THEREF ORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT OFFERDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HE, T HEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEAL) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL DENOVO . ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN CIT(APPEAL) OR DER IN MENTIONING THE DATE OF ORDER AS 16.06.2009, BUT THE ORDER WAS ACT UALLY PASSED ON 18.06.2009. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 29.01.2009 AND FURTHER FULLY HEARD ON 16.05.2009. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY CERTAIN ISSUES, AND THE CASE WAS FIXED ON 18.06.2009 AT 1 1:30 A.M. FOR COMPLIANCE. HOWEVER, ON THE SAID DATE SINCE NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE, HE PASSED THE ORDER. AS FAR AS THE DATE OF ORDER BEING 16. 06.2009 MENTIONED IN THE CIT(APPEAL) IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS ONLY TYPOGR APHICAL MISTAKE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IN THE COLUMN MEANT FOR THE DATE O F HEARING HE HAS MENTIONED THE FOLLOWING THREE DATES :- 1) 29.01.2009 2) 16.05.2009 3) 18.06.2009 3 6. FURTHER, HE HAS ALSO REPLIED TO ASSESSEES ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED 18.06.2009 ON THE SAME DATE. FROM ALL THESE EVI DENCES IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED ON 18.06.2009. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT TIME ON 18.06.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT DET AILS WERE VERY OLD. IN OUR OPINION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO COLLECT THE NECESSARY DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY LEARNED CIT(APPEAL), HE SHOU LD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED SUFFICIENT TIME TO COMPILE THE DETAILS. 7. THEREFORE, INORDER TO IMPART SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) FOR DECIDING THE SAME DENOVO . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.10.2010 SD/- SD/- ( ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 27/10/2010. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR J BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ROSHANI