AGILE MANUFACTURING SERVICES P LTD,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 392/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 July 2025AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IAC was rejected by the AO/CPC because Form 10CCB was not filed by the due date. The CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee's appeal. The Assessee then filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IAC,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Hearing: 30/07/2025Pronounced: 30/07/2025

(A.Y 2023-24) Agile Manufacturing Services Vs ITO Private Limited, 990, Sector-38, Ward 1(3) Gurgaon, Haryana 122018, HaryanaGurgaon, Haryana PAN: AATCA9486A Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl/JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai (‘Ld. CIT(A’ for short), New Delhi dated 02/12/2024 for the Assessment Year 2023-24.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an intimation came to be passed by the A.O./CPC on 25/04/2024u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), wherein rejected the claim made u/s 80IAC of the Act on the ground that Form 10CCB has not been filed within the due date, accordingly, held that no deduction will be allowed u/s 80IAC of the Act.

Aggrieved by the intimation dated 08/10/2024, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 02/12/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has not filed any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) even after providing sufficient opportunity, further submitted that the Assessee failed to produce any cogent document to prove that the form No. 10CCB has been filed in the later stage. Therefore, theLd. CIT(A) rightly passed the order impugned which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the order impugned has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

6.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →