Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE
O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)
These appeals are filed by the assessee against common order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 17.06.2019 for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 03.05.2018 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12.
2 2060 & 2061/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10 , 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Pooja Metal Corporation 2. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of these appeals on hearing the Ld. DR on merits.
ITA.No. 2059/Mum/2020 (A.Y: 2009-10)
Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: “M/s POOJA METAL CORPORATION during the A. Y. 2009-10, firm has paid the taxes on the turnover. As per Sales Tax Dept. (Hawala List) our purchases of Rs. 1,33,05,802/- asked to pay the MVAT (Disallowed Set Off). As per Sales Tax Dept. datas, Income Tax Dept. issues the notice u/s 148 and Hon'ble Income Tax Officer has addition in my turnover by above amount and passed the order with addition to the Original Turnover (Net Profit 12.5% of addition turnover) . Being aggrieved against the order, this appeal is preferred. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. For that Hon'ble Income Tax Officer imposing tax liability of Rs. 8,06,010/-
2. Firm has not liable for double taxes on the turnover (addition by Income Tax Officer).
3. For that the appellant craves the right to put additional grounds at or before the time of hearing.”
4. Heard Ld. DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, I find that the Ld.CIT(A) on the first date of hearing without providing any adjournment as sought by the assessee, passed exparte order. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the 3 2060 & 2061/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10 , 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Pooja Metal Corporation Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.
& 2061/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12)
Coming to appeals for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12, it is observed that Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on technical ground as the assessee has not filed the appeals in electronic form but filed manually.
Heard Ld. DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. It is noticed that an identical issue had come up before the Coordinate Bench in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. ITO in ITA.No. 7134/MUM/2017 [64 ITR (Trib.) 0704] and the Tribunal held that non-filing of appeal in the electronic form is only a procedural defect which can be cured and the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for disposal on merits and the assessee was directed to file
4 2060 & 2061/MUM/2020 (A.Ys: 2009-10 , 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Pooja Metal Corporation appeal in electronic form within ten days on receipt of order. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in the various decisions. Following the above decisions, these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and assessee is directed to e-file the aforesaid appeals within a period of Fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of this order, consequent to which delay in e-filing shall stand condoned and the Ld.CIT(A) shall dispose off the appeals on merits. Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(A) shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 03.11.2021 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board.