KEM LIQUORS & BEVERAGES P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3916/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 January 2016AY 2004-054 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the issues after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee cited personal and business-related issues, including the death of a licensor and health problems of the Managing Director, as reasons for the delay. The assessee had also failed to appear before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was due to a reasonable cause. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) after an ex-parte order was passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 14.1.2016

Per B R Baskaran,AM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-17, Mumbai for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the additions made under sections 43B and 68 of the Act.

3.

The appeal is barred by limitation by 393 days. The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee carried on manufacturing country liquor by taking Excise Manufacturing Licence on lease from a person named as Ratnappa Kumbhar. However, after the demise of Shri Ratanappa Kumbhar, disputes started in the factory and the same resulted in withdrawal of licence and hence production was stopped

2 3916/M/2012

from the month of April, 2002. Thereafter the assessee attempted to continue the business by entering into a new agreement with another company but the same also went into disputes and litigation. In the mean time, the health of the Managing Director of the company and his mother deteriorated and hence, the Managing Director could not look after the affairs of the company. In addition to the above, the regular Chartered Accountant of the Company Ms.Vaishali Kale left for abroad for further studies. Hence, the assessee company could not get proper guidance in the matter relating to the appeals. The ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the problems faced by the assessee, it did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) also. Hence, the First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. The ld. AR accordingly submitted that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay in filing he appeal be condoned and the appeal be admitted.

4.

On the contrary, the ld. DR strongly objected to the plea put forth by the ld. AR.

5.

We heard the contentions of the parties on this preliminary issue. We notice that the assessee was initially manufacturing country liquor by taking manufacturing license on lease. It is further submitted that the production was stopped due to the demise of the licensor. It is further stated that the agreement entered into with another company also went into dispute and litigation. In support of this, the assessee has filed the copy of the civil suit filed by it. It is also stated that the health of the Managing Director of the company also started deteriorating. He had to move frequently travel to various places to deal with the disputes. The assessee has filed a paper book wherein we find that the assessee has furnished the copies of certain medical reports and also the copy of civil

3 3916/M/2012

suit filed by the assessee in order to substantiate the submissions made in the affidavit. All these facts show that the Managing Director of the assessee-company was not in a position to attend to the affairs of the company and hence we are of the view that there is a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal in time. However, we are of the view that the plea of the assessee should be accepted on certain terms, since the assessee did not appear before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee and accordingly, direct him to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- on or before 15.2.2016 to the account of the Income Tax Department as “other payment”. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal ex-parte, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided an opportunity to appear before the Ld CIT(A).

6.

In view of the above, we condone the delay in filling the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same subject to the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the date referred above. Since the issues require adjudication after hearing the assessee, we restore them to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the issues afresh by affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced accordingly on 22nd January, 2016. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 22nd January, 2016 को की गई । (AMARJIT SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 22nd January, 2016. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS

4 3916/M/2012

आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीरधथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. ववबधगीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई /

5.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गधर्ा पधईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधनुसधय/ BY ORDER,सहधमक ऩंजीकधय (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →