WONDER PEN TIPS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7764/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3057 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 7764/M/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 2007 ) WONDER PEN TIPS PRIVATE LIMITED, F/402, THE SPRING FIELDS, NEXT TO GREEN ACCRS, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400053. / VS. ITO - 8(3)(4), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAACW3423A ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.L. JAIN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AARSI PRASAD, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 21 .06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 .06.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.12.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 18, MUMBAI DATED 18.3.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN TOTO. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF SALES RETURNS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,29,890/ - ; GROU ND NO.2 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7,54,834/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES; GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,60,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED CASH CREDITS AND GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,38,788/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED EXP ENDITURE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. IN THIS REGARD, HE BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE APPLICATION FOR CONDATION OF DELAY AND THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 18 TH JUNE, 2016 WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE SAID DELAY IS CAUSED DUE TO MISMATCH OF THE DAYS IN THE MONTHS IE 30 TH AND 31 ST THEREFORE, THERE IS A DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2 HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DELAY IS NOT DUE TO DELIBE RATE ACT AND PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT, I FIND, THERE IS A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE SAID REASON AS WELL AS THE SMALLNESS OF THE DELAY, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,76,577/ - AND DETERMINED THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS. 27,21,399/ - AGAINST THE NIL RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE U/S 144 OF THE ACT ( EX - PARTE ). IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24.11.2008 AND 27.11.2008 WERE NOT CONSIDERED WHILE MAK ING THE SAID ASSESSMENT ON 1.12.2008. IN FACT, THESE DETAILS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. 5. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE FURNISHED PAPERS CONTESTING ADDITIONS BUT THE CIT (A) REJECTED THE SAME WITHOUT A NY ARGUMENT WHICH IS EVIDENT ON THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE AO TO THE CIT (A). 6. BEFORE ME, ON THE ABOVE BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES TO REVISIT THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE M ATTER AFRESH. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A) AND MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO REMAND THE MATTER AS REQUESTED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND INADEQUACIES NOTICED IN THE ORDERS OF THE AO / CIT (A), BOTH ON MERITS AND THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED BY THEM, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD TO 3 THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JUNE, 2016. SD/ - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 21 .6.2016 . . ./ 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