M/S. LIVINGUARD TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Mrs. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Assessment Year : 2018-19
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.
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.
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.
After hearing the reason for delay in filing the appeal, the Bench decided to condone the delay and proceeded to adjudicate the matter.
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.
Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
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.
The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/01/2025. (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/01/2025
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(