M/s. Grant Thornton Advisory Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5874/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 587420114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SWEETY KOTHARY
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 5874/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. GRANT THORNTON ADVISORY PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, (FORMERLY GRANT THORNTON INDIA PVT. LTD.) WARD 12( 2), L-41, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI-1100 01 (PAN: AABCG8341G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SMT. SWEETY K OTHARY, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SURENDER PA L, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.04.2012 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER DATED 31.10.2011 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN THE GR OUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF APPEAL, IT HAS PLEADED THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ON MERIT. IN GROUND NOS, 3 T O 5, ASSESSEE IS IMPUGNING THE ADDITION OF RS.39,90,310, RS.14,00,903 AND RS.1 9,18,756 WHICH REPRESENTS BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WRITTEN OFF, PROF ESSIONAL FEE PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS, HENCE DISALLOWED UNDER SEC. 40(A) (I) AND PAYMENT MADE 2 TO ONE MR. HARISH H.V. AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY T OWARDS FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RELINQUISHMENT OF JOB BY H IM. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ELABORATE DISCUSSION ON MERITS OF THE IS SUES. SHE FILED HER AFFIDAVIT ON THE RECORD STATING THEREIN THAT APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 20.7.2011 FOR THE FIRST TIME AND AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT UP TO 31 ST JULY 2011. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 12.9.2011. IT WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE DATED 27.7.2011. SHE WENT TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) ON 12.9.2011 BUT SHE WAS INFORMED THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 AND, THEREFORE, A FRESH NOTICE WOUL D BE SENT AFTER THE NEW LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WOULD TAKE CHARGE. LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 4.10.2011 BUT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION AND AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.10.2011. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT HER BROTHER-IN-LAW SHRI GOPAL JI GATTANI EXPIR ED ON 18.10.2011 AND, THEREFORE, SHE SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT THROUGH HER JU NIOR MR. SHIV KUMAR ARORA, CA BUT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT TAKE ON RECORD THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND ULTIMATELY THE APPEAL W AS DISMISSED. SHE 3 PRAYED THAT THE MATTER BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF T HE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS SENT COMMENTS ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT TH AT THOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT FAILED TO AVAIL THEM, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECIDED EX PART E. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SUB-SECTION(6) OF SECTION 250 PRO VIDES THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHALL DETERMINE THE ISSUES TO BE ADJUD ICATED AND THEREAFTER RECORD REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HER CONCLUSION ON SUCH ISSUES. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS JUST C ONCURRED WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT REFERRI NG TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEA RNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE RECORD AND A DJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER DISCUSSING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY ASSIG NING THE REASONS AS TO HOW THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONVINCING. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED CA WHO REPRE SENTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET IF 4 WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE ISSUES TO THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR READJUDIC ATION. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHALL GRANT DUE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.04.201 2 SD/- SD/- ( K.D. RANJAN ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24/04/2012 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR