ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

ITA 3928/MUM/2012 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 392819914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAACR4974P
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3928/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 21-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 21-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 21-10-2013
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 05-06-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3928/MUM/2012 ITA NO.3929/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS:1999-2000 & 2000-01) M/S. ROHA DYECHEM PVT. LTD. A-44-45 MIDC 2 ND STREET MAROL ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI-400 092. VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 43 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-20. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) P.A. NUMBER : AAACR 4974 P ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SNEHAL J. SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. PATNAIK DATE OF HEARING : 21/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/10/2013 O R D E R PER I.P. BANSAL JM: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE. THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 30.03.2012 PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00 AND 2000-01. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN FIGURES. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1999-00 ARE REPRODUCED:- I. 1) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-38 (CIT (A)) ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.3928 & 29/M/12 A.Y.99-00& 00-01 2 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE CIT(A) BEING AGAINST THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BE QUASH ED AS BEING VOID AB INITIO AND / OR ILLEGAL. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE II. 1)THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE APPEAL TO BE INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263. 2)THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BE NOT TREAT ED AS INFRUCTUOUS. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. III 1) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( ACIT) ERRED IN PASSING A NON-SPEAKING ORDER U/S 254/147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE ACIT BEING NON-SPEAKING ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. IV 1) THE ACIT ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S 254/1 47/143(3) BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT BE HELD TO BE BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD A ND THEREFORE BE QUASHED AS BAD IN LAW. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. V 1) THE ACIT ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT HAVING THE JURISDICTION TO DO SO T HEREBY RENDERING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AB INITIO VOID IL LEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE REOPENING PROCEEDIN G BE SET ASIDE AS BEING IN VALID AND BAD IN LAW. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. VI 1) THE ACIT ERRED IN REOPENING ASSESSMENT U/S 1 47 WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.3928 & 29/M/12 A.Y.99-00& 00-01 3 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE REOPENING PROCEEDIN G BE SET ASIDE AS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. VII 1) THE ACIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DEPB LICENSE INCOME IS A RECEIPT NOT COVERED IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (IIA) (III B) OR (IIIC) OF SEC 28 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING SUCH DEPB INCOME WHILE DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINE SS FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT IT BE HELD THAT DEPB IN COME SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/ S 80HHC. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. VIII. 1) THE ACIT ERRED IN REDUCING THE BENEFIT AL LOWABLE U/S 80HHC AT RS.14 90 77 378/- INSTEAD OF RS.21 77 89 104/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF 80HHC (4B) OF THE ACT . 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE BENEFIT U/S 80HHC B E ALLOWED IN ENTIRETY WITHOUT REDUCING THE SAME BY DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S 80I. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE. IX 1) THE ACIT ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT INTEREST CHARGED U/S 23 4B BE DELETED. 1.1 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THE FIGURES MENTIONE D ABOVE ARE TO BE REPLACED BY SUMS OF RS.7 92 33 574/- AND RS.12 80 1 5 828/-. 2. BOTH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE DATED 16 TH DECEMBER 2010 PASSED BY AO UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 254/ 147/143(3). EARLIER ASSESSMENT DONE U/S. 143(3) WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF A PPEAL BEFORE ITAT AND THE ISSUES WERE SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO TH E FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN PURSUANCE TO SUCH DIRECTION GIVEN BY ITAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY AO. AFTER IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAD FILED BEFO RE CIT(A) ITA NO.3928 & 29/M/12 A.Y.99-00& 00-01 4 ADMINISTRATIVE CIT INVOKED SECTION 263 AND ORDER CA ME TO BE PASSED U/S. 263 BEFORE THE ADJUDICATION OF APPEAL BY LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT(A) FIXED THE HEARING OF THESE APPEALS VIDE NOTICE DATED JANU ARY 30 2012 FOR HEARING ON 15.01.2012. ON 15.01.2012 THE ASSESSEE S OUGHT ADJOURNMENT BY FILING APPLICATION AT RECEIPT COUNTE R. THESE FACTS ARE MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA-2. LD. CIT(A) W ITHOUT MENTIONING THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF TWO LETTERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE L ETTER SUBMITTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 16.01.2012 IT WAS INFORMED THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT ORDERS. SUBSEQUENTLY AO FURNISHED ANOTHER LETTER BEFORE LD . CIT(A) WHICH IS DATED 30.03.2012 IN WHICH HE INFORMED THAT THE ORD ER U/S. 263 HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED. THE FINAL FINDING GIVEN BY CI T IN THE ORDER U/S.263 ARE ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). AFT ER REPRODUCING THOSE FINDINGS LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2012 PASSE D U/S. 263 THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN QUASHED WITH A DIRECTION TO R EFRAME ASSESSMENTS BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSE D BOTH THESE APPEALS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 2.1 AS IT CAN BE FOUND FROM GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 P RESENTED BEFORE US THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE QUASHED AS PER RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE FA CTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN NARRATED ABOVE. CIT IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S. 2 63 HAS HELD THE ASSESSMENT PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS ITA NO.3928 & 29/M/12 A.Y.99-00& 00-01 5 PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. BASED UPON THE SAID ORDER LD. CIT(A ) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 THE APPEALS FILES BY THE ASSESSEE H AVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF AFOREMENTIONED LETTERS FILED BY AO HE HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS AS HAVING BECOME INFRU CTUOUS. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 AND HAS FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED U/S. 26 3 IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION LD . CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR MORE THAN ONE REASONS. FIRSTLY; HE DID NOT PROVIDE REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. SECONDLY; THE ORDER PA SSED U/S. 263 CANNOT COME INTO THE WAY OF LD. CIT(A) TO DISPOSE THE APPE AL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS THESE PROCEED INGS ARE INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS. IF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 AR E HELD TO BE INVALID THEN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS WILL STAND AND MATTER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. THE GROUND ON WHICH LD. CIT HAS INVOKED SECTION 263 IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEALS. THE GROUND ON WHICH SECTION 263 I S INVOKED IS RELATING TO NON-INITIATION OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY W HICH IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE ALSO THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 3.1 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE WRONGLY BEEN DISMISSED B Y THE LD. CIT(A). WE DIRECT HIM TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ON EACH OF THE ISSUE AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. THEREFORE ACCEPTIN G THE FIRST GROUND WE RESTORE THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ITA NO.3928 & 29/M/12 A.Y.99-00& 00-01 6 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR ENTIRETY. SINCE WE A RE RESTORING THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE SAME WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE OTHER GROUNDS WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE US AS THE ENTIRE APPEALS ARE TO BE RE- ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER OUR ABOVE MENT IONED DIRECTION. 4. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APPEALS FILED BY A SSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (I.P. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 21/10/2013. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.