TATA PIGMENTS LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3, JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 202/RAN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 May 2018AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submission regarding inadequate opportunity to substantiate claims before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing iron oxides and paints, appealed against additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee's grounds of appeal related to additions on account of 'other expenses' and an alleged refund.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present evidence and explanations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI

Before: SHRI N.S.SAINI & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT
Hearing: 24.05.2018Pronounced: 25.05.2018

1 ITA No.202/Ran/2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.202/Ran/2016 A.Y. : 2007-2008 The Tata Pigments Ltd., vs ACIT, Circle-3, Sakchi Boulevard, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur-831002, Jharkhand PAN No. : AAACT 6760 D Respondent (Appellant) .

Assessee by :None Revenue by :Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT

Date of Hearing : 24.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A),

Jamshedpur, dated 25.04.2016, for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee,

however, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application seeking

adjournment on the ground that due to some medical ailment, he is unable

to attend the hearing, which in our opinion is not a plausible one, therefore,

the Bench proceeded to disposed off the appeal considering the

submissions of ld. DR and the material available on record.

2 ITA No.202/Ran/2016 3. There are two substantive grounds raised by the assessee, which

are as under :-

i) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,44,670/- being 10% of Rs.64,46,693/- under the head other expenses; and ii) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 16,34,938/- made on account of alleged refund.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the

manufacture of oxides of iron, dry cement pain, emulsion paint, acrylic

distemper and wall putty and filed return of income with total income of

Rs.3,12,99,950/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the

Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny on CASS and

notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. In

compliance, the AR of the assessee appeared from time to time.

Thereafter the AO completed the assessment and made certain additions

and assessed total income at Rs.3,41,15,190/- and passed order

u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2009.

5.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee has filed an

appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings ld. AR of the

assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions and ld.CIT(A)

having considered the findings and the submissions of the assessee dealt

on the disputed issue and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

6.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal

before the Tribunal.

3 ITA No.202/Ran/2016 7. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, whereas ld. DR on the

other hand, submitted that the AO has made addition in respect of

expenses as no bills were provided, therefore, estimated income at 10%

and passed order and the assessee could not file evidences till today and

prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the assessee.

8.

We have heard the submissions of ld.DR and perused the material

on record. On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee and the

order of CIT(A), we found that the CIT(A) has considered the submissions

of the assessee, and contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was

that the AO has not provided adequate opportunity to substantiate/explain

the case of the assessee. However, the CIT(A) has not taken into

consideration the above submission of assessee relating to the

disallowance neither any proper finding in regard to the submission of the

assessee. Therefore, assessee could not make submission in respect of

disallowance made by the AO. Hence, we are of the opinion that the

assessee should be provided one more opportunity to substantiate its

claim and the matter has to be reconsidered by the CIT(A). Accordingly, we

remit the entire issue to the file of CIT(A), who shall reconsider the issue

after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and

the assessee shall cooperate in submitting the information for early

disposal of the appeal. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is

allowed for statistical purposes.

4 ITA No.202/Ran/2016

9.

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

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25/05 /2018

Sd/- Sd/- (N.S.SAINI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated 25/05/2018 Prakash Kumar Mishra , Sr. Ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant – 2. The Respondent – 3. The CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT , concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi BY ORDER, 6. Guard file.

//True Copy// SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →