GODAVARI PULP & PAPER MILLS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7483/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3801 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHAMMED RIZWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G P MEHTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Bad and doubtful debts; Condonation of delay
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.7483/M/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 ) GODAVARI PULP & PAPER MILLS P. LTD., C/O. G.P. MEHTA & CO., CAS, 807,TULSIANI CHAMBERS, 212, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 21. / VS. ITO, WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAACG 1929 P ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.P. MEHTA, / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHAMMED RIZWAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 24 .02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .02.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18.2.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 8, MUMBAI DATED 1.10.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE BAD IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. T HE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING / UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF R S. 1,77,146/ - OUT OF BAD DEBTS TO THE RETURNED INCOME REASONS ASSIGNED FOR THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE ARE WRONG AND INSUFFICIENT. 3. THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 1,77,146/ - WAS A BUSINESS LOSS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 EVEN THOUGH THE DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM WERE DULY FURNI SHED. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PROVISIONS OF LAW AND JUDICIAL PROPOSITION, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE / ADDITION OF RS. 1,77,146/ - IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . IN THIS REGARD, HE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION 2 TO THE LETTER DATED 18.12.2015 AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI PANKAJ MANSINGKA, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY, SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING TH E PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. HE READ OUT THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE SAID LETTER AND MENTIONED THAT THE DELAY CAUSED IS NOT DUE TO DELIBERATE DEFAULT OR CARELESSNESS BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND T HE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 18.12.2015 AND THE AFFIDAVIT (SUPRA), WE FIND, THERE IS A REASONABLE A ND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE REASONABLE CAUSE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SMALLNESS OF THE DELAY OF THREE DAYS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT APPEAL ON MERITS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 4. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A CASE OF EX - PARTE A DJUDICATION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT (A) WITHOUT FAIL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE MENTIONED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BY ADJOURNING THE CASE AS REQUESTED BY THEM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT SAY THAT HE WAS DENIED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN RESPONSE TO THE LD ARS REQUEST FOR REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A), LD DR SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE BENCH APPROVES THE SAME. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AFTER HEARING THE LD REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, FOLLOWING THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS WELL AS CONSID ERING THE LD ARS STATEMENT AT BAR TO APPEAR BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS 3 DIRECTED NOT TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT ON ANY FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS BEFORE THE CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. S D / - S D / - ( PAWAN SINGH ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 24 .2.2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI