MOLD-TEK PACKAGING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2154/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 May 2021AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to remit all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessees to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessees' appeals before the CIT(A) were decided ex-parte due to non-appearance. The assessees then filed appeals before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing proper opportunity to the assessees, and whether the disallowances made were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 92CA(3),Section 35D,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Hearing: 03/05/2021Pronounced: 04/05/2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA Nos. 2153/Hyd/2017
ITA Nos. 2154/Hyd/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, VS. ACIT, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), PAN: AABCT 0845 L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of hearing: 03/05/2021 Date of pronouncement: 04/05/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: These two appeals are filed by the assessees against the respective order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad. is filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0469/2016-17/DCIT, Cir. 16(2)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/17-18, dated 21/09/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14. The other appeal, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0205/2016-17/DCIT, Cir.16(2)/CIT(A)-4, Hyd/17-18, dated 21/09/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 92CA(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14.

2. In the assessee has raised five grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:- “1. The appellate order dated 21/09/2017 as passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,33,13,452/- being loss on derivatives as speculative loss disregarding the fact that such derivative transactions have been entered into with the banks for hedging the losses due to foreign exchange fluctuations on the export proceeds and are to be considered integral or incidental to the export activity of the assessee.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 97,35,194/- made by the A.O. as Arm’s Length Price of the interest receivable from its Associated Enterprise. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 5,90,632/- being expenditure forming part of general expenditure by stating that such expenditure is not verifiable. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter any of the aforesaid grounds as the occasion may arise.” 3. In , the assessee has raised four grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference:-

“1. The appellate order dated 21/09/2017 as passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 29,250/- being deduction claimed U/s. 35D made by the A.O. on the ground that the said expenditure is capital in nature.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 15,34,251/- U/s. 14A made by the A.O. on the ground that the appellant earned dividend income during the year, disregarding the fact that dividend yielding investments were made out of own funds and interest bearing funds have no nexus to the investments made.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter any of the aforesaid grounds as the occasion may arise.”

4. At the outset, None appeared before us to represent the cases of the assessees. From the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte orders without providing proper opportunity to the assessees and dismissed the appeals of the assessees. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessees however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessees nor their Representatives appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte orders based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) do not call for any interference.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases before us, We are of the view that though the Ld. CIT(A) has provided several opportunity to the assessees, none appeared on behalf of the assessees before the CIT(A) on the given dates of hearing except filing certain written submissions in both the cases. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeals ex-parte. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases before us and the issues involved in the appeals, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit all the issues involved in both the appeals back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeals afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity to the assessees of being heard. At the same breath, We also hereby caution the assessees 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 orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

Pronounced in the open Court on the 04th May, 2021.

More judgments on Section 92CA(3)

All 702 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →