M/S. VEEPEE PLASTICS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1200/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 February 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found merit in the assessee's plea that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-appearance, despite the representative being present and seeking time for written submissions. The CIT(A) relied on case law without deciding the issues on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issues on merits, and whether the assessee's grounds of appeal regarding disallowance of indexed cost of improvement and set-off of carried forward loss should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Kudva
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Hearing: 14.01.2019Pronounced: 08.02.2019

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against the order of CIT(A), Pune-5, Pune, dated 24.04.2018 relating to assessment year 2013-14 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in concluding that the appellant was not keen in prosecuting the appeal before her. The appellant submits that his representative was present before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing and

ITA No.1200/PUN/2018 2

had also made oral submissions and had merely sought time to file written submissions in view of pressure of work. The appellant pleads that the CIT(A) erred in relying on case law not applicable to the facts of the appellants case and in dismissing the appeal ex-parte. It is prayed that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) be restored and be directed to be heard by the CIT(A) in accordance with law. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant prays that the CIT(A) ought to have considered individual grounds of appeal on merits and allowed relief due as per law. 3. The appellant pleads that the Hon. I.T.A.T. dispose of the appeal on merits by considering individual grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A) as under- 3.1 The AO erred in disallowing claim for indexed cost of improvement Rs.40,98,146 incurred towards electrical installations and MSEB deposits on grounds that evidence in the form of bills were not produced. The appellant pleads that its claim was supported by sufficient documentary evidence and that the disallowance made by the AO is not justified. 3.2 Without prejudice, the AO ought to have considered the carried forward loss of AY 2012-13 and set off the same while computing total income. The appellant pleads for directions to set off the said loss in computing total income for the year. The appellant pleads that the action of the AO is not as per provisions of law and is invalid.

3.

The assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of assessee in limine by applying the ratio laid down by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (1979) 10 CTR 354 : (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and not deciding the issue on merits.

4.

I find merit in the plea raised by the assessee where the CIT(A) has decided the issue ex-parte the assessee. On perusal of order of CIT(A), it is apparent that the appeal of assessee was dismissed for non appearance but the CIT(A) has failed to discuss the issue on merits and has dismissed the appeal in limine applying the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (supra).

ITA No.1200/PUN/2018 3

5.

Under the provisions of the Act, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to address the issue raised and in the absence of the same, order of CIT(A) suffers from infirmity. Accordingly, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of CIT(A), who shall decide the issue raised on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and furnish the requisite details and evidences, if any. The issue is not being addressed on merits as the matter is being set aside to the file of CIT(A). The additional ground of appeal raised by assessee is thus, allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 8th day of February, 2019.

Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 8th February, 2019. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), Pune-5, Pune; 3. 4. The Pr.CIT-4, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य 5. मामऱा / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →