M/s Maxosys Ltd. (Formerly known as Nano Web Tech Limited), Chandigarh V. ACIT, C-3(1), Chandigarh

ITA 659/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1226 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR ALYA
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 659 TO 661/C HD/2018 A.Y : 2011-12,2012-13 & 2012-13 M/S MAXOSYS LTD., V THE ACIT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NANO WEB TECH LTD., CIRCLE 3(1 ), SCO 53, FIRST FLOOR, CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 47-D, CHANDIGARH. PAN : AACCN7552K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANKUR ALYA, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 09.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.09.2018 ORDER PER BENCH THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAIL THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 08.02.2018 OF CIT(A)-1 CHAND IGARH PERTAINING TO 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEARS ALONGWITH APP EAL IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ORDER DATED 08.02.2018 IN 201 2-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE BEING DECIDED BY COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. WE FIRST TAKE UP ITA 659/CHD/2018 FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOR GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4, IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO PROCE ED WITH THE HEARING CONSIDERING GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE E X-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS. THE LD. SR.DR WAS ALSO HEAR D ONLY ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS IN HOLDING THAT PROPER OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS ITA 659 TO 661/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 3 FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MATERIALS ON THE-RECORD AN D FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS UNTENABLE. 4. THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FUR THER ERRED IN PASSING A NON-SPEAKING ORDER OF THE PRINCIPALS OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. 4. ATTENTION OF THE SR.DR WAS INVITED TO ORDER DATED 26 .06.2015 OF THE AO PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WHEREIN A PE RUSAL OF PARAS 2 TO 3.2 OF THE ORDER SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HOWEVER, IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS 4.1 TO 4.5 WHICH RUNS INTO 1 0 PAGES, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE LINE OR DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT WAS THE RESP ONSE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT DISCUSSION, THE LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO REFER TO THE SAME. IT IS FURTHER BORNE OUT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY A COUNSEL. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AND THEY HAVE BEEN DECIDED RELYING UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSSION ON THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE, THE ORDER PASSED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, SPECIALLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE ORDER ITSELF. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) CANNOT BE SAID TO FULFILL THE STATUTORY MANDATE OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. THUS, HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDE R IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE DOE S NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, IT IS SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ADDRESSING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND GIVING A REASONED FINDING FO R ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THESE AS IT MAY BE AS IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVA NT DISCUSSION THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN CANNOT BE ADJUDICA TED UPON. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. SINCE THE FACTS IN ITA 660/2018 WERE STATED TO BE ID ENTICAL, ACCORDINGLY, WITH SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS, THE ORDER IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 6. ITA 661/CHD/2018 IS A PENALTY PROCEEDING IN 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE THE ISSUES IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL HAVE BEEN R ESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO REST ORED BACK WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS TO BE DECIDED AFTER MAKING THE ORDER IN QUANTUM ITA 659 TO 661/CHD/2018 A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 3 PROCEEDINGS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. SAID ORDER WAS P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.08.2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ( DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.