Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ SMC‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH
O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH (J.M): The Appellant, Basic Chemicals Cosmetics and Dyes Export Promotion Council (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua the assessment order for Assessment year 2015-16 on the ground inter-alia that:- “1. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in not providing one more opportunity to the appellant to represent their case.
CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in though adding the sum of Rs. 40,94,003/- on account of provision made for gratuity and leave encashment but failed to allow the amount paid during the year against the provision made for earlier years.
Your appellant request leave to add alter or modify the grounds of appeal if so required.”
2. At the very outset it is brought to the notice of the Bench by the ld. AR for the assessee that there is a delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal and sought to condone the same on the ground that due to resignation from the post of Acting Executive Director by Shri Deepak Gupta and appointment of new Director was in process, the appeal could not be filed. I am of the considered view that it is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 4 days, hence hereby condoned. The appeal is order to be listed and being heard today itself.
3. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: During the assessment scrutiny proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short, “the Act”). The assessee also claimed provision of Rs. 40,94,003/-, provision for (gratuity) at Rs. 32,39,480/- and leave encashment at Rs. 8,54,523/-, which has been disallowed by the AO and thereby framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.
4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the disallowance by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
I have heard the Ld. Authorised representative of the parties to the appeal, perused the order passed Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and material available on record in the light of the case law applicable.
At the very outset, it is brought to the notice of the Bench by the Ld. AR for the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order at back of the assessee without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, that too without deciding the case on merits which fact is not controverted by the ld. DR for the Revenue.
We have perused the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) particularly para-4 wherein it is recorded that notices dated 28.12.2020, 01.11.2022 and 06.12.2022 were issued but assessee has not preferred to file the submission and proceeded to decide the appeal for want of non- prosecution. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to bring on record if alleged notices stated to have been issued to the assessee were ever served upon him nor the mode of issuance of notice has been given.
We are of the considered view that the assessee has not been provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A). To decide issue once for all and to stop the multiplicity of the proceedings the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) hereby set aside to be decided afresh by him by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee
Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/05/2023.