M/s. TSR Darashaw Limited 6-10 Haji Moosa Patrawala Idl. Estate 20, Dr. E. Moses Rd. Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. Vs. DCIT-1(3) Mumbai-400 077.
July, 31st 2015
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI "E" BENCH
. . , , ,
Before S/Sh. A.D. Jain,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member
/.ITA No.3012/Mum/2013, /Assessment Year-2009-10
M/s. TSR Darashaw Limited DCIT-1(3)
6-10 Haji Moosa Patrawala Idl. Mumbai-400 077.
Estate 20, Dr. E. Moses Rd. Vs
PAN: AAACB 3282 G
( /Appellant) ( / Respondent)
/Assessee by : Shri Ryan Saldanha AR
/ Revenue by : Mrs. Vinita Menon-DR
/ Date of Hearing :29 -07-2015
/ Date of Pronouncement :29 -07-2015
, 1961 254(1)
Order u/s.254(1)of the Inco me-tax Act,1961(Act)
PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Challenging the order of the CIT(A)-2,Mumbai,dated 15.03.2015,the assessee has raised the
following grounds of appeal:
"1.The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance u/s. 14A at
Rs.5,12,853/- without appreciating the fact that no expenditure whatsoever has been incurred for
earning the exempt dividend income.
2.The appellant prays that the above disallowancce confirmed may be deleted.
3.The appellant craves your honour's leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at the
time of hearing or before."
Assessee-company,engaged in the business of Registrar and share transfer agent,filed its return
of income on 29.09.2009,declaring an income of Rs.4.28 crores.The Assessing Officer (AO)
completed assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act,determining its income at Rs.4.61 crores.
2.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee-company was in receipt of
income of dividend income of Rs.28.14 lakhs,that it had claimed exemption about the said
amount.He directed the assessee to file submit as to why the provisions of section 14A of the Act
should not be invoked and why disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules,1962
should not be made.After considering the submissions of the assessee the AO disallowed an
amount of Rs.5.12 lakhs
3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate
Authority(FAA).As per the order of the FAA he had issued notices to the assessee on two
occasions, but none appeared before him.Considering this he held that the assessee was not
interested in pursuing the appeal filed by it.Confirming the order of the FAA,he dismissed the
appeal filed by the assessee.
4.Before us,the Authorised Representative(AR)submitted that the assessee had not received any
notice,that the FAA decided the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee.
Departmental Representative(DR)left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.
5.After considering the material before us,we are of the opinion that the FAA has decided the
issue without discussing the merits of the case.Issuing of hearing notice/s and service of the
notice/s are two different things.The legal requirement of a valid order is not mere issue of
notice-the adjudicating authority has to prove that the notice issued by it was also served upon
the applicant and thus he was aware of the date of hearing.If the assessee does not appear even
after service of notice the adjudicating authority cannot just dismiss the appeal. He has to pass a
speaking and reasoned order.In the case under consideration,the FAA has not dealt the issue
before him on merits,so,in the interest of justice,we are remitting back the issue to his file for
fresh adjudication.He will afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.Effective
ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee,in part.
As a result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th,July,2015.
(.. /A.D. JAIN) ( / RAJENDRA)
/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant / 2. Respondent /
3.The concerned CIT(A)/ , 4.The concerned CIT /
5.DR E Bench, ITAT, Mumbai / , ,.. .
/ BY ORDER,
/ Dy./Asst. Registrar
, /ITAT, Mumbai.