Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for commission expenses and sales promotion expenses due to non-compliance by the appellant. The appellant claimed that correspondence occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic and they were not given sufficient opportunity to comply.
Held
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the orders were not passed on merits. The issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the appellant to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether sufficient opportunity was provided to the appellant to furnish details, and if additions made by the AO were on merits, especially considering the pandemic period.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.
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 2 M/s. Livinguard Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 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
3 M/s. Livinguard Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 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.