Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal, stating the grounds did not arise from the assessment order. The assessee had initially filed a return of income, followed by an assessment order and then a reassessment order where no additions were made, but credit for taxes paid was not granted.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the order giving effect to an Advance Pricing Agreement and modified return. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh, granting the assessee another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the relevant order giving effect and modified return, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147C(3a), 147, 92CD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Date of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 respectfully passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2023-14.
Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are 2. common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take A.Y 2013-14
At the very outset we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had passed exparte order dated 07.01.2025, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee stating that the grounds of appeal did not arise from the assessment order.
4. In this regard we noticed that assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,58,72,92,540/- subsequently pursuant to the assessment proceedings the AO passed final assessment order dated 24.01.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147C(3a) of the Act thereby making different additions.
5. Against that final assessment order, Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Subsequently the AO initiated reassessment proceedings and pursuant to the submissions of the assessee, passed reassessment order dated 08.05.2023 u/s 147 of the Act, wherein no additions were made to the income of the assessee as per Final assessment order. However in the computation sheet forming part of said reassessment order, the credit for dividend distribution tax, advance tax, self-assessment tax and regular assessment taxes paid till the date of passing such re-assessment order was not granted.
& 2001/Mum/2025 BASF India Ltd. Mumbai. 6. As per the assessee it constitutes a mistake apparent from the record therefore the assessee filed rectification application dated 07.06.2023 with the jurisdictional AO seeking allowance of credit for taxes paid by BIL for A.Y 2013-14 and the same is pending for disposal before the AO. The assessee has filed Annexure -1 as copy of rectification application.
The assessee also filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against non grant of credit for taxes paid. The assessee then entered into Advance Pricing Agreement ('APA') with the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 20 July 2023 pursuant to which the underlying transaction in respect of which transfer pricing adjustment was made, got covered under the APA. Pursuant to such APA, the assessee filed modified return of income under section 92CD of the Act on 31 October 2023. Thereafter, the AO passed an order giving effect ('OGE') dated 31 March 2025 for giving effect to the APA and modified return of income filed by the Appellant, wherein the credit for advance tax, self- assessment tax and regular assessment taxes paid by the assessee (including by way of refund adjustment) has been granted.
8. However, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass ex-parte order on 07.01.2025 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by assessee against which the assessee has filed the present & 2001/Mum/2025 BASF India Ltd. Mumbai. appeal before us and submitted that the revenue authorities have not taken into consideration the order giving effect dated 31.03.2025 for giving effect to the APA and modified return of income filed by the assessee wherein the credit advance tax and regular assessment taxes paid by the assessee have already been granted.
9. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
10. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that assessee was ex-parte and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) without considering the order giving effect dated 31.03.2025, therefore keeping in view the interest of justice, the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Hence considering the overall circumstances of the present case as discussed by us above, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
& 2001/Mum/2025 BASF India Ltd. Mumbai. 7. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA 2000/Mum/2025, A.Y 2013-14
At the outset assessee has moved an application for raising the additional ground. In this regard we found that the same is legal in nature and it goes to the roots of the case, therefore while following the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Jute Corporation India Ltd., Vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 and The NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 and also considering the facts of the present case, I allow the application for raising the additional ground and consequently the said ground is admitted to be heard on merits.
At the very outset, Ld. AR drawn out attention to page 97 of the paper book, wherein assessee had made submissions in regard to notice issue by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which reads as under:
We refer to the captioned notice dated 19 December 2024, issued by NFAC in relation to the appeal filed by the Appellant on 24 February 2017 against the final assessment order dated 24 January 2017 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3)(a) of the Act for AY 2013-14 by the learned Assessing Officer and received by the Appellant on 30 January 2017. Copy of the captioned notice and impugned order enclosed at Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 respectively.
In this connection, the Appellant wishes to submit that the notice includes ground raised against the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the learned Transfer pricing Officer (refer ground no 7 raised in the appeal documents filed by BIL, enclosed as Annexure 3).
We understand that the appeals relating to inter-alia international taxation/ transfer pricing issues continue under the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional Commissioner of income- tax (Appeals) as per the notification no 113/2022 dated 13 October 2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Copy of the notification enclosed as Annexure 4.
We also wish to highlight that appeals on similar grounds for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 have recently been adjudicated by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 55, Mumbai,
Accordingly, we kindly request your Honour to transfer the appeal proceedings. We sincerely regret any inconvenience caused and trust that your Honour will accede to our request and oblige.
In case your Honour does not agree to our request, we request your Honour to provide us an opportunity to provide additional submissions and for personal hearing via video conferencing before your Honour to present our case.
Since opportunity of personal hearing via video conferencing was not provided to the assessee as assessee & 2001/Mum/2025 BASF India Ltd. Mumbai. wanted to submit additional documents and in this regard had submitted that almost all the grounds raised before Ld. CIT(A) had already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case which were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A).
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that assessee had raised additional ground and also wanted to make necessary submissions and for that the assessee had made specific request vide paper book page No. 97 as most of the decisions have already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee own case. Therefore, the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise any other or new ground before Ld. CIT(A) and can also submit documents in order to substantiate its case and shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression
In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025