HAVMORE INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2844/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 January 2023AY 2014-20154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte without touching the merits of the case. It was also noted that it was not on record if the notices were properly served. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance. The CIT(A) noted that two notices were issued, but the assessee failed to respond. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts and violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits and violating principles of natural justice due to alleged non-response from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri. Kamlesh Doshi
For Respondent: Shri. Ashish Kumar Dehria

O R D E R

Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member:

1. Appellant, Havmore Insurance Brokers Private Ltd. (‘here in after, referred to as the Assessee’) by filing aforesaid Appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), for short CIT(A) on the identically verdict grounds inter alia that:-

1.

The Ld. Appellate Authority erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the assessee and in interpreting late or delayed response as no response from the Assessee.

2.

The Ld. Appellate Authority erred in interpreting that the Assessee is not interested in persuading the matter or arguing the matter with the authorities and erred in passing the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3.

The Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in not appreciating that entire Income of Rs. 13,50,000/- is offered by the parties of the assessee and there is no tax loss to the Revenue AY 14-15. 4. The Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in not appreciating that entire Interest Income of Rs.3,83,546/- is offered by the counter parties of the assessee and there is no tax loss to the revenue. 5. The Ld. Appellate Authority erred in confirming an adhoc addition of Rs.77,246/-as Travelling Expenses without considering the facts of the case Ld. Appellate Authority" erred in not appreciating the facts. 6. Your appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, delete and/or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before the final date of hearing.

2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration an adjudication of the issue at hand are :- The Assessee is into the insurance business and has earned commission there from. From the perusal of profit & loss account Assessing Officer noticed, that the Assessee has claimed interest expanses of Rs. 5,87,061/- on which no TDS has been deducted. Declining the contention raised by the Assessee Assessing Officer proceeded to disallowed an amount of Rs. 17,33,456/- u/s 40(a)(ia). AO also made disallowance of traveling expanses claimed by the Assessee to the tune of Rs. 77,246/- and thereby framed, the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

3. Assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) by way of filing Appeal who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the Appeal. Filling aggrieved Assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present Appeal.

4.

I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of the parties to the Appeal. Perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities, material available on record in the light of the argument address by the ARs. of the parties to the Appeal.

5.

At the very outset Ld. Authorized representative of the parties to the Appeal has brought to the notice of the bench that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte without touching the merits of this case, due to non appearance of the Assessee before him. Perusal of para one of the impugned order goes to show that two notices were issued to the Assessee for filing submissions and evidences in support of grounds of appeal

s, but the Assessee has failed to respond and consequently Ld.CIT(A) by applying the case of CIT Vs.Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991)

38. ITD 320 (Del) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

6. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) further, shows it is no where brought on record by Ld.CIT(A) if the alleged notices issued to the Assessee were ever served upon or what was the mode of the issuance of the notices. Even if Assessee is presumed to have been served and failed to appear before Ld.CIT(A), his appeal was required to be disposed of on merits.

7. In these circumstances I m of the considered view that, by applying the rule of natural justice adequate opportunity is required to be given to the Assessee to decide the issue at hand once for all. Consequently, this appeal is remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

8.

Resultantly, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for Statistical purpose. .

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.01.2023.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →