BUILDMATE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 266/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 September 2019AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a decision on merits, citing a High Court ruling. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee company's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance, without deciding on merits. The original assessment order had disallowed employee contributions to PF/ESI, interest on TDS, ROC charges, and taxes not paid before the due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-appearance without deciding on merits. The validity of disallowances made by the AO under various sections of the IT Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 37(1),Section 43B,Section 154,Section 143(3)

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, HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH : Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Mohan Alankamony

Hearing: 19/09/19Pronounced: 27/09/19

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH : Hyderabad

Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member

ITA No. 266/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Buildmate Projects P. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 1(3) Sy.No.60-62, Gundlapochampally Hyderabad Village Medchel, R.R. Dist. Hyderabad 14 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assesse: Sh. Samuel Nagadesi, A.R. For Revenue: Sh. Nilanjan Dey, D.R.

Date of Hearing : 19/09/19 Date of Pronouncement : 27/09/19 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 against order of CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad dated 22.01.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement blocks, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 originally on 30.9.2015 admitting income of Rs.2,57,75,938/-. Later, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 18.4.2016 admitting the same income. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 (the Act), the AO disallowed remittances of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. He also disallowed a sum of Rs.13,133/- being interest on TDS which is not allowable as expenditure and Rs.2,61,593/- being ROC charges incurred in connection with increase in authorised share capital u/s 37(1) of the Act treating it as capital expenditure. He also disallowed taxes not paid before the due date u/s 43B of the Act.

ITA No.266/Hyd/2019 AY: 2015-16 M/s Buildmate Projects P Ltd., Hyd. Subsequently rectification order u/s 154 of the Act was also passed giving credit for TDS claimed in the revised return of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed assessee’s appeal only for the reason that the assessee did not appear on the dates fixed for hearing and particularly on 21.1.2019. 3. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. General. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) : Tax effect : Rs.1,71,273/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance u/s 37(1) : Tax effect : Rs.89,135/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance u/s 43B : Tax effect : Rs.7,47,293/-. Total tax effect: Rs.10,07,701/-.

4.

Having regard to rival contentions and material placed on record, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limini and has not decided the case on merits. The CIT(A) can not dismiss assessee’s appeal for non- appearance of the assessee as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2016) 240 Taxman 133. 4.1. In view of the same, the appeal is set aside to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the assessee’s appeal on merits after giving assessee a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 27th September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th September, 2019 *Gmv

ITA No.266/Hyd/2019 AY: 2015-16 M/s Buildmate Projects P Ltd., Hyd.

Copy to:- 1) M/s Buildmate Projects India P Ltd., Survey no.60-62, NH 7, Gundlapochampally, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad – 500 014. 2) ITO, Ward 1(3), Hyderabad. 3) The Pr.CIT-1, Hyderabad 4) The ACIT, Range 1, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File CIT(A-1, Hyderabad

ITA No.266/Hyd/2019 AY: 2015-16 M/s Buildmate Projects P Ltd., Hyd.

1.

Draft dictated on 19.9.19 2. Draft placed before author 25.9.19 3 Draft proposed & placed before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.P.S./PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 27.9.19 Order uploaded on: 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8 Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →