FLAT WORLD PROCESSES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7216/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2444 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHINTAMANI DINGANKAR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7216 /MUM. /201 8 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 14 15 ) FLAT WORLD PROCESSES P VT. LTD. 1107, POST SAI VILLAGE BHOMNAGAR TALUKA, PANVEL RAIGARH 410 206 PAN AABCF1764G . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(3)(3), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : S HRI CHINTAMANI DINGANKAR DATE OF HEARING 23.11.2020 DATE OF ORDER 27.11.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. TH E AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY T H E ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 2 8 TH SEPTEMBER 2018, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 16 , MUMBAI, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 14 15 . 2. WHEN THE APPEAL W AS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE. THERE IS NO APPLICATION 2 FLAT WORLD PROCESSES PVT. LTD. SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF DISPUTE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE , A RESIDENT COMPANY , IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF NETWORK SERVICE CENTER AND SERVICE PROVI DER TO BUSINESSES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 1 ST OCTOBER 2014, DECLARING LOSS OF ` 10,06,995. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ALL OWABILITY OF ` 1,10,24,562, AND ` 2,03,26,243, DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS PROVISIONS OF DIMINUTION OF INVESTMENT AND INVESTMENT WRITTEN OFF RESPECTIVELY. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED, T HE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER 2016, FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION DISALLOWING PROVISIONS OF DIMINUTION OF INVESTMENT AND INVESTMENTS WRITTEN OFF. THUS, ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWING THE AMOUNTS OF ` 1,10 ,24,562 AND ` 2,03,26,243. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 3 FLAT WORLD PROCESSES PVT. LTD. 4. WE HAVE H EARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. AS IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS ON RECOR D, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME DISALLOWING PROVISIONS FOR DIMINUTION OF INVESTMENT AND INVESTMENT WRITTEN OFF. PROBABLY, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REVISE D COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DISALLOWING THE AFORESAID TWO DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE S. AS IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HE HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX PARTE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT FORTHCOMING FROM THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHETHER ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONAL HEARING WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THOUGH, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS R EFERRED TO A WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, NOTHING MUCH COULD BE MADE OUT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHETHER HE HAS SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS . IN OUR VIEW, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED EX PARTE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AS REGARDS THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO HIS 4 FLAT WORLD PROCESSES PVT. LTD. FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO OPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BY APPEARING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11.2020 SD/ - MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 27.11.2020 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI