WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6733/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3569 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAMACHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR KAMBALE AR S CLERK
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , G , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.6732-34/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08,2008-09 & 2009-10 & ITA NOS.6744 & 6745/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S . WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD. 1009/10 MAKER CHAMBERS, V. NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 / VS. D CIT 3 ( 3 ) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020 (ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE) P.A. NO. AAACW3474H APPELLANT BY SHRI SUDHIR KAMBALE (AR S CLERK) RESPONDENT BY SHRI A. RAMACHANDRAN (DR) / DATE OF HEARING: 31/05/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 31/05/2016 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS), {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007- WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 2 08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 PASSED AGAINST PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C),271B & 271C OF THE ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y SHRI SUDHIR KAMBALE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND B Y SHRI A. RAMACHANDRAN, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3 . IN ALL THESE APPEALS, ONE COMMON GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE WITH REGARD TO LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AND VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3.1. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD PASSED THE O RDER EX- PARTE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT ALL THESE ORDERS HA VE BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL O F ASSESSEE IN LIMINI . IT IS NOTED THAT THESE APPEALS WERE NOT DISPOSED ON MERITS. NO DISCUSSION AT ALL HAS BEEN MADE BY THE L D. CIT(A) IN THE ORDER. AS PER LAW, LD. CIT(A) IS OBLIGED TO DIS POSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDERS ALSO PROPER REPRESENTATION DOES NOT APPEAR T O HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE FIND THAT JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED IN THESE CAS ES. THUS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TOTALITY OF ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND ALL T HESE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THEIR ADJUDI CATION ON MERITS. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER PROPERLY SERVING THE NOTICE AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESS EE SHALL WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 3 ALSO EXTEND REQUISITE COOPERATION TO LD. CIT(A) BY MAKING PROPER REPRESENTATION OF THESE CASES. THE LD. CIT(A ) SHALL DECIDE THESE APPEALS ON MERITS, OBJECTIVELY, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES AND OTHER SUB MISSIONS AS MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WITH THESE D IRECTIONS, THESE APPEALS ARE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY , 2016. SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 31/05/2016 CTX? P.S/. .. #$%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % &' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()&' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * * ( % ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. * * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -. / (01 , * % 012 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / 34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) -% ( //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI