Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against the order of the learned CIT(A) for AY 2020-21. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits, including the ground related to self-assessed tax credit. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) did not grant sufficient opportunity for hearing.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have verified the ground regarding self-assessed tax credit, as it was specifically raised. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate this ground, the Tribunal set aside the order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits and properly considering the grounds of appeal, especially regarding the credit of self-assessed tax.
Sections Cited
40(a)(ia), 37(1), 156
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21) True Legacy Developers Vs. I.T.O LLP, HYDERABAD Ward 14(1) PAN:AAMFT2388Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: /07/2025 आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 26/12/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2020-21.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte and not decided the issue raised by the assessee on merits. He has pointed out that the Assessing Officer made 2 additions/disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as an adhoc disallowances of development expenses. The learned CIT (A) confirmed the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and even not considered the ground of the assessee regarding the credit of self-assessed tax as raised in Grond 11 before the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) may be set aside, and the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT
Page 2 of 5 (A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee on merits after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A) and therefore, in the absence of supporting evidence, the disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (A). He has further submitted that since the assessee has not paid the self-assessment tax at the time of filing the return, therefore, the credit of the same might not have been given by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order and raising the demand. He has thus relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee has raised as many as 12 grounds of appeal before the learned CIT (A) and Ground No.11 is regarding the credit of self-assessment tax of Rs.9,96,59,540/- which was not given by the Assessing Officer while issuing the demand notice u/s 156 of the I.T. Act. The learned CIT (A) has given the details of the notices issued which shows that 4 notices were issued by the learned CIT (A) out of which the assessee has requested for adjournment only against one notice and rest 3 notices remained un-replied. Consequently, the learned CIT (A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte and Page 3 of 5 confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It is pertinent to note that within a specific ground was raised by the assessee regarding the credit of self-assessment tax together with interest in Ground No.11 before the learned CIT (A), then the learned CIT (A) ought to have verified this fact from the record but the said ground was not even adjudicated by the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee be given one more opportunity to explain its case before the learned CIT (A). Hence, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.