WORLDLINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ATOS WORLDLINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-12(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5850/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 June 2019AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided satisfactory reasons for non-appearance and that the CIT(A) had passed the order without granting a fair opportunity. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to address changes and other procedural issues, preventing them from appearing on multiple hearing dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Whether disallowances made in respect of purchases and membership fees were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, [the ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 27.06.2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper opportunity of being heard. Thus, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad-in-law.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.34,64,475/- in respect of purchases made from M/s. Krsna Enterprises without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance u/s 37(1) of Rs.49,52,000/- in respect of membership 1

fees without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. 4. The appellant prays that the above disallowances may be deleted. 2. At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed he ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was further submitted that representative of the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) due to bonafide reasons when the appeal was fixed for hearing. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that first notice of hearing was fixed by ld. CIT(A) on 22.03.2016. The address of assessee was changed from 2nd Floor, Tower-1, Raiaskaran Tech park, Phase II, M.V. Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E). Therefore, no notice was received for said date. Again on 06.10.2016, the notice was issued for hearing on 24.10.2016, on 24.10.2016, the assessee sought adjournment on the ground of compiling the details. The hearing of appeal was again fixed on for 06.06.2017. The representative of assessee went to attend the proceeding on 06.06.2017, however, the ld. CIT(A) was not present in office and it was intimated that fresh notice would be issued. On 08.06.2017, the hearing of appeal was again fixed for hearing on 23.06.2017. The assessee has not received any notice as notice was issued at wrong address. The assessee has already furnished the address of their Chartered Accountant on 06.10.2016.

However, no notice was received on such address. The ld. AR of the assessee has good case on merit and likely to succeed in case the assessee is granted opportunity to contest the case on merit. It was further submitted that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit.

3.

On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR submits that assessee is most negligent in appearing before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) fixed the hearing of appeal on four occasions, the representative of assessee appeared only once. The ld. DR prayed for dismissal of appeal.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of ld. CIT(A). We have noted that the ld AR for the assessee has elaborately explained that first notice of hearing was fixed by ld. CIT(A) on 22.03.2016, the address of assessee was changed from 2nd Floor, Tower-1, Raiaskaran Tech park, Phase II, M.V. Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E).

Therefore, no notice was received for said date. Again on 06.10.2016. The notice was again issued for hearing on 24.10.2016, on 24.10.2016, the assessee sought adjournment on the ground of compiling the details. The hearing of appeal was again fixed on for 06.06.2017. It was explained that the representative of assessee went to attend the proceeding on 06.06.2017, however, the ld. CIT(A) was not present in office and it was intimated that fresh notice would be issued. On 08.06.2017, the hearing of appeal was again fixed for hearing on 23.06.2017. The assessee has not received any notice as notice was issued at wrong address. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has not recorded his satisfaction whether the notice issued on 3 08.06.2017 for fixing the date of hearing on 23.06.2017 was received or not or any acknowledgment of notice was received in his office. There is no satisfaction of ld. CIT(A) that notice was returned un-served.

5.

In view of the above, the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons of non-appearance. We are of further view that the assessee would not get any benefit in intentional and deliberate absence in attending the proceeding before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Considering the submissions of ld. AR of the assessee, we are of the view that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for non-appearance on 23.06.2017. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order is passed without giving fair and proper opportunity to the assessee, therefore, we allowed the ground no.1 of the appeal raised by assessee and restore the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding all the grounds of appeal afresh. Needless to say that before deciding the issue, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant adequate and sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee is also directed to fully co-operate and provide all the necessary information and documentary evidences to ld. CIT(A) and not to seek adjournment without any valid reasons. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12 /06/2019.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →