Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order by the NFAC. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the merits of the case, which was stated to be a violation of legal precedent.
Held
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal on merits, even in an ex-parte order, and did not pass a speaking order. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merits, and whether the case should be remanded for proper adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 144C(3), 143(1), 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
Assessee by : Shri Harsh R Shah Revenue by : Shri Prakash L Pathade, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 24.04.2025 Date of : 02.05.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 09.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19 framed by Ld. CIT(A), Pune 13 and is arising out of assessment order passed by NFAC, Delhi (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 herein after referring as Act, dated 08.11.2021.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CTT(A) has erred in not appreciattig that even while disposing of the appeal ex parte, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the Order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) without going through the detailed statement of facts, grounds of appeal
and the submissions dated 2 ebruary 2012 and 9. January 2025 cannot be sustained.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the cave and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) errad by upholing the order passed by the leamed AO ('assessment order) in relation to transfer pricing adjustment of INR 33,03,75,100 wahout appreciating that the same is not sustainabile owing to the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) executed by the Appellant with the CBDT on 21 December 2021 and the modified return of income fled by the Appellant on 31 March 2022.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that no disallowance of INR 17,16,421 was warranted since the said amount was on account of notional interest recorded in the statement of profit and loss due to Ind AS adjustment.
4. On the fects and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CTT(A) erred in not appreciating that no disallowance of INR 1,84,90,300 was warranted since the sald amount was excess prevision that was written back.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted allowance of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO has erred in considering the erroneous computation of total income in intimation issued under 143(1) of the Act while passing the final assessment order.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to have been granted due credit of TDS, resulting in consequential refund along with interest.
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.
The above grounds are Independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant cravess leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.
At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the impugned order is ex- parte and Ld. CIT(A) has not given any findings on merits of the case. Therefore prayed for providing one more opportunity for pleading the case before Ld. CIT(A) on various grounds of appeal raised in Form 35 filed before Ld. CIT(A) on 17.12.2021.
Per contra Ld. DR was fair enough in not opposing the genuine request made by Ld. counsel for the assessee.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us.
Impugned order is ex-parte. Assessee did not attend to the first date of hearing fixed on 21.02.2024 and thereafter filed adjournment on dates fixed on 22.07.2024 and 10.12.2024 and on the final date of hearing given on 09.01.2025, in the absence of any representative, Ld. CIT(A) framed the impugned order on the very same date giving reference to various decisions including that of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.Bhattacharyajee & another (118 & ITR 461) and concluded the appellant proceedings by confirming the order of the AO without specifically dealing with the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT(C) Vs. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (huf) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that Ld. CIT(A)NFAC is obliged to dispose the appeal on merits even in the ex-parte order. Examining the impugned order in light of the above judgement, we find that Ld. CIT(A) failed to deal with merits of the case and did not passed a speaking order. We also note that the assessee has also not made proper compliance before Ld. CIT(A) and therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties , we deem it appropriate to remit all the issues raised on merits of the case challenging the additions made by the AO back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act for which proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 02nd day of May, 2025.