THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 246/CHANDI/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 September 2021AY 1997-983 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed additional interest under Section 244A(1A) for delay in refund processing. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issue on merits, citing non-appearance of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issue on merits and whether principles of natural justice were followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 30/12/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:

1.

at the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in not giving effect to grant additional interest u/s 244A(1A) of the Act for undue delay in processing refund which is bad in law.

1.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing assessee’s claim for additional interest for which assessee was eligible on account of gross and unreasonable delay in granting the refund by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 3. That the appellant craves the right to amend, modify and / or alter grounds and / or to adduce and rely upon such further evidences and / or documents as may be required before and during the course of proceedings. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the A.O. while passing the order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) noticed that at the time of giving effect to the order of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 1,77,87,104/- and collection towards refund adjustment from A.Y. 1995-96 and 1996-97 amounting to Rs. 3,23,99,990/- totaling to Rs. 5,01,87,094/- was not given due to want of verification of TDS which now had been received from the deductor and placed on record. He accordingly allowed the refund of Rs. 12,14,17,380/- which included interest of Rs. 7,12,30,281/- under section 244A of the Act.

3.1 The assessee was not satisfied for the calculation of the interest and challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), the calculation made by the A.O. for interest on the refund mainly on this basis that the interest was not effected on the refund of Rs. 62,48,895/- for the A.Y. 1995-96 and Rs. 64,47,825/- for the A.Y. 1997-98. However the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte in limine the relevant findings are given in para 6 to 6.2 of the impugned order which read as under:

6.

Ground of Appeal No. 1: The appellant has challenged that the A.O. has erred in not effecting the interest on refund u/s 244A(1A) of the Act of Rs. 62,48,895/- for the A.Y. 1995- 96 and Rs. 64,47,825/- for the A.Y. 1997-98. 6.1 PER CONTRA: Nobody attended the appeal proceedings despite of best efforts made by this office to reach the appellant. 6.2 HELD: I have perused the assessment order and considered the facts of the case. Despite of making best efforts to serve the notice on the given correspondence address in Form No. 35 and email address, appellant could not be reached as discussed at para 4 supra. Moreover, Sh. Dinesh Singh, Branch Manager has also been informed telephonically by this office but opportunity to represent the appeal was not availed for the reason best known to the appellant. It seems that appellant does not want to pursue the appeal. In the absence of any written submission, I am completed to sustain the additions. The ground of Appeal No.1 is dismissed.

4.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

5.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine without deciding the issue raised before him on merit and that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee.

6. In her rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that in spite of various opportunities given, the assessee did not avail the opportunity of being heard, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly decided the appeal of the assessee exaprte.

7.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee exparte and no evidence was brought on record to substantiate that the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. He simply stated that Shri Dinesh Singh, Branch Manager had been informed telephonically by his office but the opportunity to represent the appeal was not availed. However it is not clear as to whether the said person was authorized to represent the case. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned, unheard as per the maxim, “audi alteram partem”.

8.

We therefore by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

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

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →