Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)(NFAC)[ld.CIT(A)] dated 11.03.2023 emanating from assessment order dated 23.09.2021 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the I.T.Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without appreciating that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not responding to some of the notices issued by him.
2] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance Suttatti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., [A] made u/s 80IA(5) amounting to Rs.58,71,350/- on the ground that the year under consideration was the 11th year of the claim.
3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in this year, the assessee had claimed deduction in respect of the windmills located at Rajasthan for which the initial asst, year was A.Y. 2012-13 and accordingly, the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA was justified in law.
4] The assessee submits that the initial asst, year for the Rajasthan windmill undertaking was A.Y. 2012 - 13 and therefore, the 10 years had not lapsed and accordingly, the assessee was justified in claiming deduction u/s 80IA in respect of the profits of the said windmill undertaking.
5] The assessee submits that the initial asst, year considered by the learned A.O. as A.Y. 2007 - 08 was for windmills in Maharashtra and Karnataka and not for the windmills in Rajasthan and accordingly, there was no reason to make any disallowance in respect of the claim made by the assessee.
6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Submission of ld.Authorised Representative (ld.AR) : 2. The ld.AR at the outset submitted that assessee could not file details before the ld.CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) has passed the order ex- parte. The ld.AR elaborated the reasons for not filling details. The ld.AR further submitted that assessee is filling to submit all the details if proper opportunity is given by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the ld.AR pleaded that the case may be set-aside to ld.CIT(A).
2 Suttatti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., [A]
The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the Lower Authorities.
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Assessee’s Ground No.1 is regarding ex-parte order passed by the ld.CIT(A). On perusal of the ld.CIT(A)’s order, it is observed that assessee has not made any submission before the ld.CIT(A).
4.1 We are convinced that there was valid reason for not making proper submission before the ld.CIT(A). Before us, the ld.AR has assured that assessee will comply with the directions. In the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall give appropriate opportunities to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.