Movie Times Cineplex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. Pr, CIT, Range-4, Delhi

ITA 591/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Movie Times Cineplex Pvt. Ltd against the orders of the Pr. CIT, Delhi-4, for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention of the Assessee was the arbitrary exercise of revisional powers by the Pr. CIT and the lack of a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Assessee argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other operational challenges, they were unable to respond adequately to the show cause notice issued by the Pr. CIT. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT had not considered the Assessee's request for adjournment and had proceeded without acknowledging the difficulties faced by the Assessee in responding to the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131224 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, HON‟BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 587, 588, 591 and 586/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2011-12 to 2014-15) Movie Times Cineplex Pvt. Ltd, 701, Kamal Cinema Building, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi PAN: AAECM2182N Vs. Pr. CIT, Range-4, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Aggrawal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv Shri Mihir Aggrawal, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 01/06/2023 Date of pronouncement 30/06/2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. These appeals in hand have been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.03.2021, for respective AYs, by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Delhi-4 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as „the Act‟). 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee opened argument submitting the manner in which arbitrarily the revisional powers were exercised. He also made arguments touching merits of the case. Ld DR however, defended the order being based on merits. Page | 2 4. In regard to ground Nos. 1 and 2 it was submitted that the Assessee was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing. 5. It can be appreciated from the matter on record that the Ld. PCIT mentioned in his order that the show cause notice u/s 263 was issued to the Assessee on 05.03.2021 and the Assessee was expected to submit reply by 10.03.2021. 5.1 On behalf of the Assessee in the paper book at page No. 202 the email received from the Ld. Tax Authorities has been placed followed by application moved by assessee on 10.03.2021 to the Ld. PCIT seeking adjournment and reasonable time to prepare and represent its case. This application at page 203 is the screen shot of the email submitted to the Ld. PCIT and at page 204 is the application itself. They disclose that the Assessee has brought to the knowledge of Ld. Pr. CIT of the grave Covid-19 pandemic in Delhi due to which the commercial activities of exhibition of cinema and films of the Assessee company were suspended. It was also mentioned that one Accounts Manager had expired on 14.02.2021 and two accountants who were looking after tax matters, had left service without any notice. However, the ld. Pr CIT observed in his order that no reply was filed therefore, went on the presumption that the Assessee does not wish to make any submission. 5.2 This bench is of considered view that Revisional authority exercising power u/s 263 of the Act is expected to give reasonable and appropriate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The notice was issued on 05.03.2021 expecting reply to be filed by the Assessee during Covid-19 crisis by 10.03.02021. Order was passed on 15/3/21. The haste may not be for any malice but due to time bound disposal of matter. But that does not serve the ends of justice. Ld. Pr. CIT has not taken into consideration the request of adjournment though as per documents filed the Assessee has responded by email Page | 3 also. While examining the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act Tribunal has to go into the reasoning and finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT as to how it deals with the reply of the Assessee. However, in the case in hand the Bench is devoid of such opportunity. 5.3 Thus, on these grounds Nos. 1 and 2 alone the appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with consequential effect and Ld. Pr. CIT is directed to take on record the reply of the Assessee and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, decide the matter afresh. The Assessee shall appear before the ld Pr. CIT on 7/09/2022. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2023. -Sd/- -Sd/- (G.S.PANNU) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) HON‟BLE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/06/2023 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi