Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: AND RAJESH KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK (Through virtual hearing) BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.226/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Basanti Basanti Automobiles, Automobiles, 1, 1, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Januganj Januganj Golai, Golai, PO/PS: PO/PS: Balasore Januganj, Dist: Balasore Januganj, Dist: Balasore PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AAIFB 8729 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, AR P.K.Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 23/08 8/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), , NFAC, NFAC, Delhi, Delhi, dated 25.5.2023 25.5.2023 in in Appeal Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023 /NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053160486(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2014-15.
Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.
The assessee has raised the following grounds: The assessee has raised the following grounds:
P a g e 1 | 5
ITA No.226/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15
“1. For that the impugned order passed u/s.250 by the ld CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15, being contrary to the facts on record is not sustainable in the eye of law, as such, the disallowances/additions made by the ld AR and confirmed by him, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 2. For that the ld CIT(A) as well as the ld AO have committed gross error of law as well as fact in confirming the addition of discount given to customers of Rs.5,31,581.00 made by the ld AO, ignoring the explanation offered and evidences adduced by the appellant. The impugned disallowances of expenditure, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 3. For that the ld CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as fact in confirming the 50% disallowances of business promotion and after service expenses of Rs.1,90,465.00 on adhoc estimate basis, made by the ld AO without having any plausible reasons and in ignoring the evidences adduced by the appellant. The impugned disallowance of expenses, being not correct in the eye of law is liable to be deleted in the interest of justice. 4. For that the ld CIT(A) should not have confirmed the disallowances of expenses made by the ld AO on adhoc estimate basis, particularly when the said expenses were solely, wholly and exclusively incurred for the business purpose only and supported by bills and vouchers. The impugned disallowance/addition of said expenses, being unjustified and not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, your appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to urge other grounds of appeal, if any, at the time of hearing in the interest of justice.” 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish various details and documents to be required for the disposal of the appeal. It was the submission that the notices of hearing were issued by the ld CIT(A) electronically and for the first time on 12.1.2021, the assessee requested
P a g e 2 | 5
ITA No.226/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15
for adjournment for one month, which was acceded. However, no notices were received by the assessee as claimed in the impugned order. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has merely confirmed the disallowance by observing that the assessee failed to furnish any written submissions in support of the grounds taken in appeal and the appeal was disposed of exparte without considering the facts on merits. It was the submission that if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee, the assessee will cooperate with the ld CIT(A) by filing the written submissions and various documents for disposal of the appeal. Hence, it was his prayer that the matter be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the notice were issued to the assessee electronically and the first notice dated 12.1.2021 was complied by the assessee seeking adjournment for one month time. However, the assessee was non-cooperative thereafter and did not respond to the notices sent by the ld CIT(A) as is evident from the impugned order. He submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) once again.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the assessee has responded to the notice sent by the ld CIT(A) once by seeking adjournment for one month, which was granted by the ld CIT(A). However, thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any notices and also failed to file any documents to controvert P a g e 3 | 5
ITA No.226/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15
the findings of the Assessing Officer in regard to additions. As there was no compliance by the assessee, the ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the additions/disallowances made by the AO without considering the merits of the addition. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. CIT(A), as per the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order in writing stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. It is observed that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not comply with these requirements. We, therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeal) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal afresh expeditiously.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 23/08/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 23/08/2023 P a g e 4 | 5
ITA No.226/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15
B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Basanti Automobiles, 1, Januganj Golai, PO/PS: Januganj, Dist: Balasore 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Balasore 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 5 | 5