M/S LEVIGO ENGINEERING INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The CIT (A) erred in passing the order in the manner he did.

2. The learned CIT (A) erred in passing the order without giving the proper opportunity to the Appellant.

3. The learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the forex loss amounting to Rs. 41,85,991/- without appreciating that the same was incurred in the course of business and is a business loss on regular business.

4. The learned CIT (A) erred in treating the Forex Loss amounting to Rs. 41,85,991/- as speculation loss u/s 43(5) of the Act without appreciating the submission of the Appellant..

5. The learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing depreciation a technical know how holding that payment made is not an expenditure without appreciating that the same was used for the purpose of business, hence it is an business expenditure.

6. Without prejudice, the disallowance are excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be reduced substantially. 7. for these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.”

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order of CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. She pointed out that on the date of hearing fixed by CIT(A) on 11.12.2017, the assessee has sought Page 2 of 3 adjournment and the same was granted by ld. CIT(A) as noted by him in para 1 of his order. Thereafter she submitted that the next date of hearing was fixed on 19.12.2017. She pointed out that on that date, the assessee and his AR went to the office of CIT(A) to appear but he was busy with some other case and therefore, assessee and ld. AR of assessee could not meet CIT(A). But it is noted by CIT(A) in para 1 of his order that there was no response on this date. She submitted that under these facts and in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. In reply, the ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A). He also submitted that the submissions made by ld. AR of assessee are not supported by any evidence.