SHIBANEE AND KAMAL ARCHITECTS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 972/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 November 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the issues on merits and had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance. Based on joint submissions, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance, despite the assessee claiming notices were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee argued that due to restrictions, they could not file submissions or argue the case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-appearance without considering the merits, especially given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal also involves several grounds related to disallowances of business expenditure, interest, and salary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 24,Section 40A(2),Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & MS. PADMAVATHY S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl

ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 02/08/2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer ("AO") without considering the submissions filed by the Appellant and thus, the order passed is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

1.

2. That the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant has failed to participate in the appeal proceedings when in fact, the Appellant has filed its detailed replies to the notices issued by the AO/CIT(A).

3. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,95,190/- paid towards property tax without appreciating that the tax has been paid subsequent to capitalization of land and is thus, a business expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act).

4.

That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 2,20,445/- incurred towards travel expenses without appreciating that the same was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 5. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in disallowing the interest expenditure of Rs 60,19,355/- when the same was incurred for business purpose. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in disallowing of interest expenditure on house property of Rs. 10,61,221/- under Section 24 of the Act. 7. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- under Section 40A(2) of the Act as being excess payment of salary. 8. That the AO/CIT(A) erred in going beyond his jurisdiction in questioning the commercial rationale of the Appellant. 9. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in disallowing the actual cost incurred for acquisition of land and thus disallowing proportionate amount of Rs. 2,44,406/-. 10. That the AO erred in issuing notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter. by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal

. at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal.”

2. We note that the above issues has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) on merits. Instead the appeal was dismissed for none had appeared before the first appellate authority. The Ld.CIT(A) has observed as under: “4. Decision:- The assessee has been given several opportunities to represent its case on 05.11.2018, 21.12.2018, 12.02.2019, 04.03.2020, 20.08.2020, 25.01.2021 and 03.06.2022, however, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, having Page 3 of AO is sustained, while dismissing all grounds of appeal

.”

3. The Ld.AR submitted that all the notices were issued to assessee when covid period existed and there was restriction in moving around by the people. Assessee as well as revenue were not in the condition to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) because of which the submissions could not be filed and issues was not argued on merits. She submitted that the appeal may be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) and assessee undertakes to appear with all the relevant submissions / details in support of its claim. The Ld.DR did not object for the above submissions by the Ld.AR. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.

4. Based on the joint submission by both sides, we remand all the issues to the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits having regards to the evidences / submissions filed by assessee in support of its claim. We accordingly, remit this appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →