SHRI PARESHBHAI D. NARIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 63/SRT/2021Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 November 2021AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for seeking time and was not given a fair and proper opportunity by the NFAC. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC for adjudication afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested an adjournment from the NFAC due to the severe COVID-19 pandemic and the need to prepare submissions. The NFAC treated the adjournment request as a submission and passed an ex-parte order without granting a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the disallowance of interest expense was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 254(1),Section 57

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A Revenue by Shri Deependra Kumar,Sr-DR Date of hearing 11.11.2021 Date of pronouncement 11.11.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘NFAC’), Delhi/ CIT(A) dated 26.03.2021, which in turn arises from assessment order passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5) Surat, under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 17.12.2018for assessment year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing ex-parte order without (A.Y. 16-17) Sh. Pareshbhai D Nariya providing reasonable opportunity9ofhearing to assessee even though adjournment application was filed by assessee.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.7,07,932/- by disallowing deduction of interest expense claimed u/s 57 of the I.T. Act, 1961.”

2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submits that assessee was served with notice from NFAC, New Delhi / CIT(A).The assessee vide his application uploaded on NFAC portal website on 19.03.2021 requested for adjournment up to 02.04.2021 for preparation of submissions and compilation of documents. The NFAC treated the said adjournment application as submission of assessee, hence, instead of granting of adjournment, adjudicated the appeal of assessee in ex-party proceedings, vide impugned order dated 26.03.2021. The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessee was not granted fair and reasonable opportunity to contest his case. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the month of March 2021, it was a severe pandemic period of Covid-19 throughout the country while the assessee sought adjournment. No other notice from NFAC was received by 2

More judgments on Section 57

All 1,225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →