ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 314/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 September 2021AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was cautioned to cooperate fully in future proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 86 days, which was condoned due to the pandemic. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and whether the appeal should be remitted back for a fresh hearing on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD

For Respondent: Smt. D. Komali Krishna, DR
Hearing: 16/09/2021Pronounced: 17/09/2021

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10365/2018-19/CIT(A)-2, dated 29/01/2020 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17. The appeal is filed with a delay of 86 days. Keeping in view of the Pandemic situation during the period we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

2.

The assessee has raised nine grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal exparte without providing proper opportunity to the appellant and without considering the written submissions filed.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the claim of the bad debts of Rs. 8,24,35,698/- debited to the profit and loss account is not an allowable deduction.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of 15% of the sundry creditors or Rs. 76,41,150/-.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,74,66,434/- worked out at 10% of the payments made to the sub-contractors. 6. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of loss on long term contract of Rs. 106,24,91,703/-.

7.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act of Rs. 8,86,720/-. 8. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing interest U/s. 244A of Rs. 37,88,540/-.

9.

Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us by stating that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A) except filing the written submissions. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) has posted the case for hearing on several occasions however, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the given dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte based on the material available on record. In this situation, We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR as well as the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co- operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

Pronounced in the open Court on the 17th September, 2021.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →