CYNAPSE INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6655/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84013 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR BORA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6655/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) CYNAPSE INDIA PVT. LTD. 802, 8 TH FLR. DHEERAJ SAGAR LINK RD. MUMBAI-400 064. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(1)(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020. ( ! / // / APPELLANT) ( ' # ! / RESPONDENT) P.A. NO. ! $ % $ % $ % $ % /APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH '# ! $ % $ % $ % $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BORA $ &'( / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 28.10.2014 )* + $ &'( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.10.2014 ,- ,- ,- ,- / / / / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JM) : THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 1/8/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BROAD LY ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS TIME BARRED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSES SEE EXHIBITED UNPRECEDENTED CARELESSNESS AND PROFESSIONAL MIS-CON DUCT AND FURTHER ITA NO.6655/MUM/2012 2 NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DID NOT ADMIT THE SAME. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDE NTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SHRI VI JAY KUMAR BORA DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER/IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THERE WA S A DELAY OF 151 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS A LSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 AND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NONE WAS PHYSICALLY PRESENT. TH E APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPROACH OF THE AS SESSEE WAS CASUAL. HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED T HAT WHENEVER NOTICES WERE RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT THE SAME WERE HAN DED OVER TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED. HOWEVER, AS AGREED BY THE ASSESSE E, AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,000/- IS IMPOSED AS A COST UPON THE ASSESSEE WHICH WILL BE DEPOSITED IN PRIME MINISTERS RELIEF FUND. IF THE P ROOF OF SUCH PAYMENT IS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THEN THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ITA NO.6655/MUM/2012 3 HEARD ON MERIT BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSES SEE . IF SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT MADE THEN THIS APPEAL MAY BE TREATED AS DISM ISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF. SUBJECT TO THIS CONDITION THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION O F THE HEARING ON 28 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 . ,- $ )*+ .,/ 28.10.2014 * $ 6 SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ( ,7 ( ,7 ( ,7 ( ,7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ,7 ,7 ,7 ,7 / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; ., DATED : 28 TH OCT. 2014. ../ JV, SR.PS . ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. : / CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI 5. 8=6 '& , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6> ? / GUARD FILE. ,- ,- ,- ,- / BY ORDER, #8& '& //TRUE COPY// @ @@ @/ // /A B A B A B A B (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI