M/s General Trading Company, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kanpur

ITA 86/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92157 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNIT KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Bad and doubtful debts; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.86/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 M/S GENERAL TRADING COMPANY 49/27, GENERAL GANJ KANPUR V. ACIT-3 KANPUR TAN/PAN:AADFG8709R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. PUNIT KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 29 04 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 06 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EXPARTE WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE, THE CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EXPARTE. 3. BECAUSE THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM, PURSUANT TO THE APPEAL FILED, AND HAS THEREBY ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EXPARTE WITHOUT DECIDING THE DISPUTES ON MERITS. . :- 2 -: 4. BECAUSE THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES (RS.1,11,933/-), CAT-EXPENSES (RS.35,850/-), MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (RS.20,212/-), SALES PROMOTION (RS.6,372/-), AND CONVEYANCE (RS. 13,9267-), WHICH EXPENSES HAVING BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS SHOULD OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED 5. BECAUSE THE ACCOUNT BEING TAX AUDITED, COMPLETE DETAILS HAVING BEEN FILED AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS POINTED OUT, BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ERRED IN MAKING AND UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCES UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES (RS.1,11,933/-), CAR EXPENSES (RS.35,850/-), MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES (RS.20,212/-), SALES PROMOTION (RS.6,372/-), AND CONVEYANCE (RS. 13,926/-). 6. BECAUSE THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,515/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE NAME OF M/S. INDIA SALES CORPORATION. 7. BECAUSE THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,01,716/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. 2. THIS APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY 630 DAYS, FOR WHICH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS FILED. IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF ITS PARTNER AND EMPLOYEE, SHRI. HAUSLA PRASAD TIWARI WHO HAS RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT DELIVER IT TO THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN DETAIL IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI. HAUSLA PRASAD TIWARI AND PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. SINCE THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. :- 3 -: 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO HIM FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 4. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FIXED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ONLY ON TWO DATES AND THEREAFTER HE DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL EX- PARTE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXTEND ALL SORTS OF CO-OPERATION TO THE LD. CIT(A) IN DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH JUNE, 2015 JJ:2904 :- 4 -: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR