HOTEL RAHAT PALACE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 6(3)-2, MUMBAI

ITA 4979/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1907 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL K HAKANI
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JM & SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, AM & I.T.A.NO.4979/MUM/2008 - A.Y 2005-06 HOTEL RAHAT PALACE PVT. LTD., ATTACHED TO GEETA THEATRE, DR. E.MOSES ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018, PAN NO.AAACH 0998 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)-2, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAHUL K. HAKANI. REVENUE BY : SHRI SOMOGYAN PAL. O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 9/5/2008 OF THE CIT[A] FOR THE A.Y 2005-06. THE ON LY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING DISALLO WANCE OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.35,55,508/-. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.35,55,508 /- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE DEBT HAD BECOME BAD AND ALSO GIVEN NO DETAILS WHETHER THE DEBTS HAD BEEN OFFERED AS IN COME IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT[ A] . HOWEVER, AS PER THE FINDING OF THE CIT[A] , THE ASSESSEE DID NO T APPEAR TO REPRESENT THE CASE THOUGH THE CASE HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS ON 7/3/2008, 3/4/2008 AND 30/4/2008. CIT[ A] , THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PR OSECUTION. 2 AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION, ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE REC ORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REG ARDING DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.35,55,508/-. THE CIT[A] DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AS NO ONE APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEING PR OVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, EVEN IF THERE IS NO REPRESEN TATION FROM SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT[A] IS REQUIRED TO DECIDE THE APP EAL ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS SEC.250(6) PROVIDES THAT CIT[A] HAS TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING, STATING TH E POINT OF DETERMINATION, DECISION THEREON AND REASON FOR THE DECISION. IN THIS CASE, POINT FOR DETERMINATION WAS DISALLOWANCE OF B AD DEBTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT[A] . THE ORDER OF THE C IT[A] , THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO HIM FOR DECIDING THE SAME ON MER ITS. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.S.PADVEKAR) (RAJENDRA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 30 TH APRIL, 2010. P/-*