M/S. ORISONS MACRO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 124/CTK/2020Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 September 2020AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principle of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 729 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee obtaining the CIT(A)'s order late from the income tax portal. The assessee also contended that the assessment order was passed ex-parte due to being in judicial custody.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer due to ex-parte orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194H,Section 68

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, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Patra, AR
For Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),1, Bhubaneswar dated 15.1.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“ 1. The addition of Rs. 49,69,519/- made on account of suppression of Gross Receipts due to differentiation of figure as reflected in statement of Profit & Loss Account and statement as per 26AS is incorrect and arbitrary as the above differences arises due to reimbursement of expenses made by the party for which TDS has been made.

2. The disallowance of commission paid amounting to Rs. 12,60,225/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is incorrect and bad

P a g e 1 | 4 24/CTK/202 0 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 14- 15 in law as the above amount of commission has been paid by the Appellant Company after deduction of tax as per Sec. 194H of the IT. Act.

3.

The addition made on account of unexplained Cash Credit U/s. 68 amounting to Rs. 49,16,000/- on account of credit to the HDFC Bank A/c. is incorrect and bad in law as the above amount has been credited in the normal course of business operation for which the details are available with the Appellant Company.”

3. The appeal is time barred by 729 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 13.3.2020 supported by affidavit, inter alia, explaining that although the ld CIT(A) has passed order on 15.1.2018 but the order was obtained by the assessee after downloading data from the Income tax Portal on 14.2.2020 and, the, the assessee could file the appeal before the Tribunal causing delay of 729 days, which is not intentional.

4.

Reiterating the submissions made in the petition, ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and deliberate, hence, the appeal be admitted for adjudication. Ld D.R. opposed for condoning the delay.

5.

After considering the condonation petition and the submissions of the parties, we are satisfied that the delay was caused due to the fact that the first appellate order although was passed on 15.1.2018 but same could not be delivered to the assessee. The above order of the ld CIT(A) was obtained by the assessee after downloading from the Income tax Portal on P a g e 2 | 4 24/CTK/202 0 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 14- 15 14.2.2020 and then the appeal was filed. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication.

6.

Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed exparte order without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. . He also submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was in judicial custody and, therefore, assessment was passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act. Hence, it was his prayer that the matter be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication Ld D.R. did not have any objection in restoring the matter.

7.

After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that the CIT(A) has passed exparte order following the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 on the ground that the assessee has failed to appear before him on the date fixed for hearing. We also observe that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order u/s.144 of the Act in the absence of the assessee and the contention of the ld A.R. is that the assesse was in judicial custody during assessment proceedings. Hence, considering the principle of natural, we consider it justifiable to give one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to P a g e 3 | 4 24/CTK/202 0 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 14- 15 make the assessment denovo after providing adequate opportunity the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Assessing Officer by complying the requires details as called for to complete the assessment.

Consequently, the appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing officer.

8.

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

Order pronounced on 07/09/2020.

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 →