What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard and without deciding on merits. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution without a proper hearing. The assessee raised three issues concerning disallowances of service tax, discount, and sales tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without providing an opportunity of being heard and deciding on merits.

M/S vs T Titanium Motors Private Limited | ITAT Chennai 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 11.07.2023Pronounced: 11.07.2023

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1049804607(1) dated 15.02.2023. The assessment was framed by the DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated 29.12.2019.

2 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the three issues raised by assessee i.e., disallowance of service tax payable, disallowance of discount and disallowance of sale tax payable amounting to Rs.2,41,816/-, Rs.3,63,52,568/- and Rs.84,38,240/- respectively. The ld.counsel drew our attention to the order of CIT(A) and the findings of CIT(A) given in para 3.4 to 3.7 and argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution simpliciter. Subsequently, the ld.counsel drew our attention to Ground No.2 of the appeal before us, which read as under:- “2. The NFAC/Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal exparte without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.”

The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that first the CIT(A) has not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard and moreover, he is duty bound to decide the appeal on merits, which he has not done. The ld.counsel stated that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution only and not on merits. Hence, he requested that matter should be remitted back to his file. Further, the ld.counsel stated that even in the order of AO, the assessee has to file many details and hence, it will be suitable if matter goes back to the file of the AO instead of CIT(A).

When this was pointed out to ld. Senior DR, he objected to setting aside of the matter to the file of the AO but on query from the Bench, that the details filed before us now requires verification and that verification can only be done by the AO and it will cut short one more route of CIT(A). In case, assessee will again be aggrieved by the order of AO, he is free to file appeal before CIT(A). In term of the above, we remit these three issues back to the file of the AO, who will decide according to law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th July, 2023 at Chennai.

M/S vs. T TITANIUM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments