, Û ( )
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " B" BENCH, MUMBAI
[^ .. , [ Û ¢
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI SANJAY GARG,JUDICIAL MEMBER
./I.T.A. No.6910/Mum/2012
( [ [ / Assessment Year :2009-10)
BOB Capital / DCIT-2(1)
Markets Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan
rd
3 Floor, South 5 t h Floor, M.K. Road
Wing, UTI Tower Mumbai-400 020.
GN Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex
Bandra (E)
Mumbai-400 051.
. / . /PAN/GIR No. : AAACB 4199 C
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
/ Shri Anuj Kisnadwala-CA
Appellant by :
Shri Asghar Zain-Sr. AR
/Respondent by :
/ Date of
Hearing : 12/01/2015
/Date of 12/01/2015
Pronouncement :
/ O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred against the exparte
order of CIT(A) dated 31/08/2012. The assessee has taken the
following grounds.
2 ITA No.6910/M/2012
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and
in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the ld. AO's
action in assessing the interest income under the head
"Income from other Source.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and
in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the ld. AO's
erred in not giving the credit of the addition of
Rs.5,00,000/- on account of "Advance membership
Fees" made in the assessment year 2008-09 even
though the same has been reversed in the current
year, resulting in taxing the same twice.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and
in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the ld. AO is
not giving the MAT credit u/s. 115JB, while calculating
the tax payable."
2. At the outset the ld. AR has stated that the order of the
CIT(A) is an exparte order. He has further submitted that the
assessee company after receipt of notice from the CIT(A) about
date of hearing of the appeal before him has instructed its C.A. to
appear and pursue the matter before the CIT(A). The said CA had
also appeared before the AO on behalf of the assessee company,
but the said C.A. did not appear before the CIT(A) on the date of
hearing, hence, the ld. CIT(A) decided the matter exparte. The ld.
AR has further submitted that the assessee company was under
bonafide belief that the C.A. would appear and contest the matter
before the CIT(A). The non appearance of the assessee company
before the CIT(A) was due to lapse on the part of the concerned
C.A. and the same was not deliberate or intentional on the part of
the assessee. The assessee in this respect has relied upon the
affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee company
namely, Shri T.R. Prashanth Kumar.
3 ITA No.6910/M/2012
2.1 The ld. DR has supported the impugned order. After
considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we
are of the view that the interest of justice will be well served if the
assessee is given an opportunity to represent its case and the
matter be decided by the ld. CIT(A) on merits. We, accordingly set
aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh, after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2015.
Û
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.R. BASKARAN) (SANJAY GARG )
/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Û /JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 12 /01/2015
.../ Jv , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. × / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)-
4. / CIT
5. , , / DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
6. [ / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
× //True Copy//
/
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
, / ITAT, Mumbai.
|