RANJITKUMAR JAIN,RANEBENNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1553/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI. WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had failed to appreciate the factual aspects and the previous ITAT order, dismissing the appeal without proper application of mind. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh examination and denovo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a proprietor of Ashoka Cotton Traders, was assessed on total income with additions for sundry creditors, sundry debtors, and disallowed lorry freight expenditure. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The Revenue appealed, and the ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Subsequently, the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as infructuous.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC correctly dismissed the appeal as infructuous without adhering to the ITAT's directions for denovo adjudication? Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 234B,Section 234D,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. WASEEM AHMED & SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra B. R, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Hearing: 10.10.2024Pronounced: 07.01.2025

ORDER

Per Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065958285(1) dated 24.06.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), for the Assessment Year 2012- 13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being a proprietor is in the business of trading in Kappas and Cotton running under the name and style of M/s. Ashoka Cotton Traders. The Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 27.03.2015 on a total assessed income of Rs.2,21,93,680/- by making total addition amounting to Rs.2,16,68,530/- under the following heads- i) Sundry Creditors difference Rs.2,81,870/- ii) Sundry Creditors served but not replied Rs.2,37,947/- iii) Sundry Debtors unserved/not replied Rs.2,08,18,838/- iv) Lorry Freight paid disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) Rs.3,29,875/- --------------------- Rs.2,16,68,530/- ============== The AO accordingly determined the balance tax payable including interest amounting to Rs.90,67,000/- after giving credit of prepaid taxes.

3. Aggrieved by the Assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.03.2015, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Davangere. The CIT(A) vide his Order dated 27.05.2016 had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, aggrieved by the Order of the ld.

Page 4 of 6 CIT(A) dated 27.05.2016, the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore. The “C” Bench of the Bangalore ITAT vide Order dated 02.08.2017 had set aside the impugned Order of the CIT(A) dated 27.05.2016 and restored the same to his file for examination and denovo adjudication of all the grounds after affording adequate opportunity of being heard. The relevant para / observations are reproduced before for ease of reference and convenience:

4.

Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide Order dated 24.06.2024 has held that as the Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench had disposed the Revenue’s appeal relevant to the above CIT(A), Davangere, on 02.08.2017. Hence, the present appeal of the assessee is treated as infructuous and as such is dismissed for statistical purposes. The assessee again being aggrieved by the Order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 24.06.2024, has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

Page 5 of 6 5. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without understanding the factual aspect has been pleased to dismissed the appeal by treating the same as infructuous and accordingly prayed to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC again and to decide the case as per the direction of this ITAT, Bangalore Bench vide Order dated 02.08.2017.

6.

Learned DR on the other hand also are in concord with the view of the learned AR of the assessee and submitted that the issue may be remanded back to the file of CIT(A) as per the direction of this Hon’ble Bench vide Order dated 02.08.2017.

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On going through the Order of the Tribunal dated 02.08.2017, we find that this Tribunal categorically set aside the impugned Order of the ld. CIT(A) and restored the same to the file to him for fresh examination and denovo adjudication of all the grounds raised in the appeal after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Being so, we are of the opinion that ld. CIT(A) without understanding the factual aspects and even without going through to the Order of the Tribunal had treated the appeal of the assessee as infructuous and accordingly dismissed the same. This is nothing but a clear non-application of mind on the part of the CIT(A)/NFAC. With no fault the assessee, he is suffering just for the inconsiderate approach of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, we have no hesitation to again restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) / NFAC and direct that the direction as given in paragraph 3.4.3 of the Oder dated 02.09.2017 may be followed after giving both the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →