Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A.Ys: 2015-16) M/s Logi-IO Vs. ITO, Ward 15(2)(2) Technologies Pvt Ltd Room No. 15-B, Ground A-202, Kukreja Centre Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 13, CBD MK Road, Mumbai – Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400020. – 400614. �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCL7166R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms.Indira Adkil. DR Date of Hearing 11.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 passed u/s 143(3) and 250. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. a) on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal. b. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal ex-parte on the M/s. Logi-IO Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 2 - grounds that 5 times case was fixed for hearing but none attended. c. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing he appeal without appreciating the facts that decisions relied upon by him were distinguishable on facts rather one decision i.e Bharat Petroleum Corp ITD 359 ITR 371 (Bom) supports the contention that appellate authority has to dispose off the appeal on merit and not on the ground of non attendance or for non prosecution of the appeal. Appellant relies on decision of Mumbai ITAT Bench G in case of M/s. Sumo Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT in dated 12.03.2019. 2.a) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without discussing merits of additions made by Ld. AO of Rs. 43,35,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. b. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering and not adjudicating the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 43,35,000/- u/s 68 being cash deposits in bank account which were received by assessee company in course of business and is accounted in books of account. c. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered appellants submissions made at the time of assessment proceedings and dismissed the case without going into merits.
3. The appellant craves leave to consider each of the above ground of appeal as independent and without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any or all grounds of appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of development of M/s. Logi-IO Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 3 - software. The assessee has filed the return of income on 23.03.2016 for the A.Y 2015-16 disclosing a total income of Rs. 2,15,210/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was issued. In compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details. The Assessing officer (A.O) on perusal of AIR information found that there were cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 43,35,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee has explained that the cash deposits are made on account of portal development charges received from several clients. The A.O in order to check the genuineness of the business transaction has issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act randomly on 40 parties/ clients. Whereas few parties have confirmed and some of the notices were undelivered due to wrong address and in other cases no information was filed. The A.O is of the opinion that the assessee is well aware of the reasons for scrutiny and he is not ready with the information even over a period of time and could not substantiated the genuineness of the M/s. Logi-IO Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 4 - transactions and treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee of Rs. 45,50,210/- and passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.11.2017.
3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A).Whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal and findings of the A.O and issued a notice of hearings to the assessee and found that the assessee has not responded to the notices and therefore confirmed the action of the A.O and passed an ex parte order and dismissed the assesee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte confirming the action of the Assessing officer
We have heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order considering the fact that M/s. Logi-IO Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 5 - there is no appearance nor any submissions are filed by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex- parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. We on perusal of the CIT(A) found that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at page 3 of the order, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not inclined to prosecute the appeal.
We find that the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions by the A.O. and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. We considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of M/s. Logi-IO Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 6 - appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.04.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 13.04.2022 KRK, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. The Respondent. 2. The CIT(A) 3. Concerned CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //True Copy// 1. ( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
‘
M/s. Logi-IO Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 7 -
Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on 11.04.2022 PS 2. Draft placed before author 12.04.2022 PS
Draft proposed & placed before PS the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by PS Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed 2. Other Member… on whi