Mary Kay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 5401/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9837 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARAS KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K M GUPTA MR RISHABH MALHOTRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5401/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MARY KAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD., 837 & 838, SECTOR-38, OPPOSITE JUDA MARKET, GURGAON, HARYANA 122101 (PAN: AAECM9208M) DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.M. GUPTA,, ADVOCATE MR. RISHABH MALHOTRA, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SARAS KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-38, DELHI DAT ED 16.3.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE BY MAKING AN OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE REQU ISITE APPEAL FEE AND THE ITA NO. 5401/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 2 CHALLAN THEREOF IS NOT THERE IN THE PAPERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS OBSE RVATION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS FACTUALLY INCORREC T AS THE CHALLAN HAD BEEN DEPOSITED AND THE SAME WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE APP EAL PAPERS. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE CHALLAN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A ) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS, HE SHOULD BE SO DIRECT ED. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERING FI LING AN APPLICATION UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED SENIOR DR HAD NO OBJECT ION TO THE FILE BEING RESTORED TO THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERING TH AT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS AND HAS DISMISSED IT ONLY ON AN INCORRECT OB SERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE REQUISITE APPEAL FEE, WE DEEM IT EXPEDIENT TO RESTORE THE FILE TO THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE IT ON MERITS, AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 5401/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD JULY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 3 RD JULY 2020 GS COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR