Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी दुगा� राव �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G., Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1110/Chny/2022 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Veeramani Muthukumarasamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2-1, Pullanthai, S. Keeranthai, Ward 1, Ramnad. Kadaladi 623 120, Tamil Nadu. [PAN:ARDPM4941N] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R. Viswanathan, FCA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.10.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2019-20.
The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by one day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay in the form of an affidavit, to which; the ld. DR
2 I.T.A. No.1110/Chny/22
has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment year 2019-20 on 21.08.2019 admitting total income of ₹.42,26,550/-. The assessee filed a revised return on 06.07.2020 admitting total income of ₹.13,50,400/- after claiming the compensation received from the company of ₹.23,39,149/- as ex-gratia payment, ₹.5,00,000/- as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B) of the Act, ₹.37,000/- as deduction under section 80D of the Act, ₹.39,077/- and ₹.48,329/- as deduction under section 10 of the Act claiming refund of ₹.10,95,730/- out of the TDS of ₹.11,40,688/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and a notice under section 143(2), section 143(A) and section 143(3B) of the Act were served on the assessee. Further notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.07.2021 & 17.07.2021 calling or details have been served on the assessee. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 18.09.2021 assessing total income of the assessee at
3 I.T.A. No.1110/Chny/22
₹.42,60,626/- after disallowing various claims to the extent of ₹.29,10,226/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee could not furnish any written submissions in response to the hearing notice issued by the ld. CIT(A).
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that neither the ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issues on merits nor granted adjournment to make his submissions before the appellate authority since the notices calling for written submissions were sent in very short intervals of time (three notices within a span of one month) as the assessee was working in Chennai and his AR was in Trichy, the assessee was genuinely prevented from seeking professional guidance to draft and submit his written submission. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue on merits.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. In this case, the assessee was a former
4 I.T.A. No.1110/Chny/22
employee of M/s. Pfizer Health Care India Private Limited. Since the company closed down its sick unit and provided compensation to its permanent employees to opt for retirement, the assessee in his original return, claimed refund of ₹.6,11,860/- as well as relief under section 89(1) of ₹.56,94,856/-. By filing revised return of income, claiming the compensation received from the company of ₹.23,39,149/- as ex-gratia payment, ₹.5,00,000/- as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B) of the Act, ₹.37,000/- as deduction under section 80D of the Act, ₹.39,077/- and ₹.48,329/- as deduction under section 10 of the Act claiming refund of ₹.10,95,730/- out of the TDS of ₹.11,40,688/-. However, while concluding the assessment, the Assessing Officer has disallowed various claims to the extent of ₹.29,10,226/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
6.1 We find that the ld. CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the issues on merits. Therefore, to meet the ends of natural justice, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and decide the issues on merits in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall file all the details to substantiate his claim before the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication.
5 I.T.A. No.1110/Chny/22
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd August, 2023 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 23.08.2023 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.