K SERA SERA BOX OFFICE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(4), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
[
Per Bench:
These are 7 appeals preferred by the same Assessee against the following orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals against the Assessment Orders, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21:
ITA No.5637 to 5643/Mum/2024
Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2020-21
Appeal No.
Assessment Year
Date of the Order
2014-2015
04/09/2024
2015-2016
04/09/2024
2016-2017
04/09/2024
2017-2018
04/09/2024
2018-2019
04/09/2024
2019-2020
04/09/2024
2020-2021
04/09/2024
During the course of hearing, both the sides had agreed that the appeals were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in identical facts and circumstances and therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
When the appeal were take up for hearing the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee was proceeded ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) in all the appeals and therefore, the Assessee was not able to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice one more opportunity be granted to the Assessee to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A) on merits.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that both, during the assessment proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee had been non- compliant. Despite getting sufficient opportunities, the Assessee has failed to make proper representation and therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be sustained.
We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. We find that 4 notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) before the Assessee was proceeded ex-parte. Similarly during
ITA No.5637 to 5643/Mum/2024
Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2020-21
the assessment proceding the Assessee was granted to present its case over 10 hearings. However, we find that during the assessment proceedings, there was short gap between different hearings. On the other hand, during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the 4 notices were issued over a period of 2 years. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal and the conduct of the Assessee we deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the Assessee to make out a case before Ld. CIT(A) subject to payment of cost. Accordingly, the order(s) passed by Ld. CIT(A) impugned by way of the present appeal before the Tribunal are set aside subject to payment of cost of INR 5,000/- per appeal in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. It is clarified that in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) or fails to file documents/details/submission, the ld. CIT(A)shall be at liberty to adjudicate the ground raise on merits based upon the material on record. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.4 raised by the Assessee in each of the appeals is allowed for statistical purposes and all other grounds raised are dismissed as being infructuous.
In result, the 7 appeals preferred by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 25.02.2025 (Om Prakash Kant) Accountant Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 25.02.2025 Dhananjay Kumar, Sr.PS
ITA No.5637 to 5643/Mum/2024
Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2020-21
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध ,आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण ,म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file.
आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER,
सत्य दपि प्रदि ////
उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt.