HOTEL RAHAT PALACE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI v. ITO 6(3)-2, MUMBAI

ITA 4979/MUM/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 497919914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAACH0998M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4979/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant HOTEL RAHAT PALACE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 6(3)-2, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 20-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 20-04-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 07-08-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR JM & SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH AM & I.T.A.NO.4979/MUM/2008 - A.Y 2005-06 HOTEL RAHAT PALACE PVT. LTD. ATTACHED TO GEETA THEATRE DR. E.MOSES ROAD WORLI MUMBAI 400 018 PAN NO.AAACH 0998 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)-2 MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAHUL K. HAKANI. REVENUE BY : SHRI SOMOGYAN PAL. O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 9/5/2008 OF THE CIT[A] FOR THE A.Y 2005-06. THE ON LY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING DISALLO WANCE OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.35 55 508/-. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.35 55 508 /- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE DEBT HAD BECOME BAD AND ALSO GIVEN NO DETAILS WHETHER THE DEBTS HAD BEEN OFFERED AS IN COME IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT[ A] . HOWEVER AS PER THE FINDING OF THE CIT[A] THE ASSESSEE DID NO T APPEAR TO REPRESENT THE CASE THOUGH THE CASE HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS ON 7/3/2008 3/4/2008 AND 30/4/2008. CIT[ A] THEREFORE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PR OSECUTION. 2 AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE REC ORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REG ARDING DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.35 55 508/-. THE CIT[A] DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AS NO ONE APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEING PR OVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW EVEN IF THERE IS NO REPRESEN TATION FROM SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE CIT[A] IS REQUIRED TO DECIDE THE APP EAL ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS SEC.250(6) PROVIDES THAT CIT[A] HAS TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING STATING TH E POINT OF DETERMINATION DECISION THEREON AND REASON FOR THE DECISION. IN THIS CASE POINT FOR DETERMINATION WAS DISALLOWANCE OF B AD DEBTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT[A] . THE ORDER OF THE C IT[A] THEREFORE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO HIM FOR DECIDING THE SAME ON MER ITS. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.S.PADVEKAR) (RAJENDRA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 30 TH APRIL 2010. P/-*