BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1106/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 November 2023AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of proper representation before the CIT(A) and the repeated adjournments. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee bank sought an adjournment before the CIT(A) due to a counsel's family tragedy. The CIT(A) had issued 11 notices, and the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, despite repeated adjournment requests, violated principles of natural justice and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri Abhinash Daware
For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27-09-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The assessee filed a letter dated 20-11-2023 through its Assistant General Manager (AGM), Financial Management & Accounts seeking adjournment stating that unavailability of its counsel due to some family tragedy. The ld. DR pointed that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dismissed the appeal of the non-prosecution. On perusal of the record, we note that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi issued 11 notices, wherein, the appeal was adjourned from time to time on the request of assessee seeking adjournment which is evident from para 5.3 of the impugned order. Further, the assessee raised ground No. 2 for violation of principles of natural justice before us. In view of the same, we note that there was no proper representation before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, therefore, the adjournment application filed by the assessee is rejected and we proceed to hear the appeal with the assistance of ld. DR.

3.

Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed return of income claiming loss, but however, the AO determined the tax liability on book profit u/s. 115JB o the Act inter alia making disallowance on account of section 14A r.w.r. 8D and disallowance of prior period expenses. The same were challenged before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi vide grounds forming part of Form No. 35. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi issued as many as 11 notices, we find the assessee sought adjournment in all the occasions except on 16-09-2022, 02-02-2023 and 31-08-2023 which clearly establishes that there was no assistance from the assessee in supporting the grounds raised

in Form No.

35. Further, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi proceeded to confirm the order of AO having no option to decide the case on the basis of material available on record which is evident from para 8 of the impugned order. Thus, taking into facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for its fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd November, 2023.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →