FLAT WORLD PROCESSES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7427/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1213 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7427/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) M/s. Flat World Processes Pvt. Ltd. 302, Level-3, Ceejay House, F- Block, Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. बिधम/ Vs. DCIT-9(3)(2) Mumbai. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCF1764G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 21/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai dated 21.09.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, we note that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. We also note that despite notices issued to the assessee and the matter has been listed several times before this Tribunal, neither anyone appeared for the assessee nor they have preferred adjournment application. 3. At the outset, we take note of the fact that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order, and in this regard notes that the appeal before him was fixed five (5) times between 10 th May 2016 and 8 th Sep, 2016 (on 10 th May, 2016, 23 rd May, 2016, 29 th June, 2016, 25 th July 2016). According to the Ld. CIT(A), since the assessee/AR did not bother to appear before him, he had disposed of the appeal. It is Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. AR) ITA No.7427/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Flat World Process Pvt. Ltd. 2 noted that the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating ground no. 1 regarding the assessee’s claim of repair and renovation expenditure amounting to Rs.26,61,700/- looked into the written submission of assessee and noted that the assessee failed to file any supporting evidences neither before him nor the AO. Therefore, in the absence of proper vouchers and supporting evidences according to Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the expenses and had upheld the action of AO disallowing the expenditure. Likewise, in the case of disallowance of Rs. 3,86,480/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rule”) the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that even though the assessee had suo moto disallowed a sum of Rs.2,20,49,515/- and the assessee was in receipt of only Rs. 1,84,127/- as dividend income, still the AO invoked Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rule and computed the disallowance amounting to Rs.2,24,49,995/- and added the difference of Rs.3,86,480/-, and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. The impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) has been challenged before us. 4. We note from a perusal of the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds of appeal raised before him by observing inter alia that assessee has failed to file any supporting evidence/material before him or AO. As we noted, the impugned order is an exparte order. So it would be in the interest of justice and in consonance with natural justice if the assessee is represented and heard and is given an opportunity to file supporting documents to substantiate its claim. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the ITA No.7427/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 Flat World Process Pvt. Ltd. 3 impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to give proper opportunity to the assessee and decide both the issues in accordance to law. We also direct the assessee/Ld. AR of the assessee to be diligent and file supporting documents to substantiate its claim. With the aforesaid direction, we dispose of this appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30/06/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ABY T. VARKEY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated : 30/06/2022. Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) आदेश की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai