M/s. DCPL International, Indore V. DCIT 1(1), Indore

ITA 913/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0810 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MOURYA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 64

Judgement Text

DCPL INTERNATIONAL ITANO.913/IND/2019 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.913/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 APPELLANT BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI R.P. MOURYA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 10.06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A)-III, INDORE DATED 13.06.2019 PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS.11,56,500/- BEING BUSINESS PROMOTION AND THE REASONS ASSIGNED B Y HIM FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND RU LES MADE THERE UNDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD FAILED TO DISTRIBUTE THE GOLD COIN PURCHAS ED AND DISTRIBUTED TO FOREIGN COUNTRY FOR ANY BUSINESS EXP EDIENCY AND THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO M/S. DCPL INTERNATIONAL, 404, CITY CENTER, 570 M.G. ROAD, INDORE VS. ACIT 1(1), INDORE (APPELLANT ) (REVENUE) PAN NO.AAEFD1908N DCPL INTERNATIONAL ITANO.913/IND/2019 2 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND RULES MADE THERE UNDER. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS.1 ,42,774/- OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND RULES MADE THERE UNDER. 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS E RRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTING THE APPEAL AND DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, MO DIFY AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. REGIST RY INFORMED THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARED BY 64 DAYS. THE APPEA L WAS TAKEN UP WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE. 3. AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED SEEKING CONDONATION O F DELAY FOR THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS STATED THAT REASON FO R DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL THAT INITIAL CIT ORDER WERE SENT ON MAIL AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A FREQUENT USER OF MAIL AND CONVERS ANT WITH THE FEATURES OF THE SAME. IT WAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSEE ABOUT THE CIT ORDER AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ITR ON E-POR TAL. THE PHYSICAL COPY OF CIT ORDER WAS NOT FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS AN INADVERTENT DELAY OF 64 DAYS FOR FILING APPEAL B EFORE THE DCPL INTERNATIONAL ITANO.913/IND/2019 3 TRIBUNAL. THROUGH THIS APPLICATION ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT DELAY OF 64 DAYS OCCURRED MAY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AN D SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFOR E US. WE FIND THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 64 DAYS. HOW EVER LOOKING TO THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION FOR SEEKIN G CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THIS DELAY OF 64 DAYS. WE THEREFORE IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE REASONABLE CAUSE MENTIONED BEFORE U S, CONDONE THE DELAY OF 64 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL AND ADMIT IT FOR ADJUDICATION. 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS EX-PARTE . LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR NON APPEARANCE. LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IN THESE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE DE SERVES ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY. WE THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE AND BEING FAIR TO BOTH THE PARTIES, SET ASIDE ALL THE I SSUES RAISED ON MERITS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) FOR AFRESH ADJUDICATION AND TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER PRO VIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. WE ALSO DCPL INTERNATIONAL ITANO.913/IND/2019 4 DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO COOPERATE/APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND SHOULD REFRAIN FROM TAKING UNN ECESSARY ADJOURNMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED FOR REASONABL E CAUSE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.06.20 20. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 11 JUNE, 2020 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE