M/S. LIVINGUARD TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6151/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Livinguard Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer (AO) to their income for the assessment year 2018-19. The additions were made towards commission expenses and sales promotion expenses due to non-compliance in providing necessary details and evidence during the scrutiny proceedings. The appellant argued that they did not receive adequate communication from the tax authorities, which was compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the additions were made for non-compliance and not on merits, and thus remitted the case back to the AO for a re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471297 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SWAPNIL NEWASKAR
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Mrs. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 6151/MUM/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Livinguard Technologies Pvt. Ltd. C 96, 1st Floor, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC Trubhe Navi Mumbai Maharashtra-400 705 Vs. DCIT (15)(1)(2) National e- Assessment Centre Delhi/ 126B, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AACCL2003M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Swapnil Newaskar Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date of Hearing : 06/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 28/01/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited appeal in the scrutiny proceedings, the appellant company was requested to furnish details with necessary evidences relating to sales promotion expenses and commission expenses during the year under consideration. As the details were not furnished, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 12,84,795/- towards commission expenses and Rs. 2,18,32,743/- towards sales promotion expenses. The Ld. AO has made the addition as there was no compliance from the appellant. The Ld. AO has concluded the assessment by adjudicating that the letters and reminders were sent through email and as there was no reply, these two additions were made. 2. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. AO, an appeal was instituted by the appellant before Ld. CIT(A) and consequently Ld. CIT(A) gave six opportunities as mentioned in page No. 4 of Ld. CIT(A) order. Still, there was M/s. Livinguard Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2 no response from the appellant company and hence these additions were confirmed by the first appellate authority. 3. During the hearing before the Bench, the Ld. AR of the appellant has mentioned that there is a delay in filing the appeal by three months and the reason for delay was mentioned as the email service provider has informed that there is no email received from the Income Tax Department. But when the appellant company checked the Income Tax Department Portal, it was found that there is an appeal order from Ld. CIT(A) and immediately after coming to know about the order of Ld. CIT(A), they have requested the Chartered Accountant to file an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. Hence there is a delay of three months which Ld. AR of the appellant has requested to condone the same. 4. After hearing the reason for delay in filing the appeal, the Bench decided to condone the delay and proceeded to adjudicate the matter. 5. The appellant company filed an appeal stating that it received only one letter on 13.11.2024 and afterwards no mails were received by them. In the Grounds of Appeal itself, the appellant company filed certain evidences which were not before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). The main ground agitated by the appellant company is that the Orders were not passed on merits by lower authorities and they were not given sufficient time and opportunity to comply and submit the details. Moreover, all these correspondence took place during Covid Pandemic time and hence it was requested that an opportunity may be given to explain all details. 6. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. After hearing both sides, it is decided that the issues are remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO as most of the correspondence took place during Covid Pandemic time. Moreover, it is seen from the Orders of the lower authorities, that the additions were made for non compliance of the notice M/s. Livinguard Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3 and not on merits. Hence, the issues are remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO. The appellant company is directed not to seek further adjournment and cooperate with the Department as sufficient number of opportunities were already given by the lower authorities. 8. The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/01/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/01/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS "