SHRI. BYLAPANAPALLYA CHANDRAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 311/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 June 2023AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it just and fair to remit the issue back to the NFAC for a fresh consideration. This decision was made to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) was decided ex-parte. The assessee had not filed any submissions before the NFAC, leading to the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity to present their submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 12.06.2023Pronounced: 12.06.2023

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 20.2.2023. The assessee has raised following grounds:

Bylapanapallya Chandrappa, Bangalore

Tax effect relating to each Ground of Ground appeal No. 1 The National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) was wrong on facts and in law in confirming the assessed income of Rs. 38,30,823 as against the returned income of Rs. 19,43,088. 583311 2 The NFAC erred in confirming the denial of the deduction of thirty per cent and further taxing the entire annual rent of Rs 345000 as income from other sources. 31982 3 The NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of salary of - Rs. 13,97,000 431673 4 The NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of one sixth of the expenses and depreciation of Rs. 279238 with respect to vehicle maintenance. 86285 5 The NFAC erred in sustaining the addition made by invoking section 40A(3) when the ingredients of the section were not 25955 met 6 The NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 24000 for non- deduction of TDS . 7416 7 The NFAC ought to have decided the appeal on merits 583311 8 All grounds taken are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, vary, withdraw or alter any or all of the above grounds of appeal. The Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interests of justice. Total tax effect 583311

2.

At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. submitted that the order was passed ex-parte by NFAC and the issue may be remitted to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration.

3.

The ld. D.R. submitted that the NFAC fixed the case for hearing on 26.10.2021, 13.1.2023 & 9.2.2023. The assessee did not file any submissions before NFAC and hence, the order was passed ex-parte.

Bylapanapallya Chandrappa, Bangalore

Page 3 of 3 Hence, he requested that the issue may be decided by this Tribunal on merit.

4.

I heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, there was no submissions filed by the assessee before NFAC. The NFAC confirmed the order of the AO ex-parte. In my opinion, it is just and fair to remit the issue in dispute to the file of NFAC for giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, issue in dispute is remitted to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2023

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →