LEMMINKAINEN CONSTRUCTION (I) P LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 633/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 July 2022AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking and ex-parte order without properly adjudicating the issue of warranty provision and without serving notice on the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed additions made by the AO. The assessee claimed that adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided and the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order and provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 04.07.2022Pronounced: 04.07.2022

आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai in dated 25.02.2020. The assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai for the Assessment Year 2010-11 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147

2 - of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide order dated 28.12.2018.

2.

Despite service of notice on many occasions, none was present from assessee’s side and even the notices could not be served on the given address and all these RPAD notices came with the remark “No such company at address”. Even, with us no new address is available. Hence, we are constrained to decide the appeal ex-parte qua, assessee.

3.

At the outset, it is noticed that the grounds raised

1.

by assessee i.e., Ground Nos.2 & 3 are that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and the same is not a speaking order. The relevant Ground Nos.2 & 3 reads as under:-

2. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming additions of INR 2,36,66,664 made by Ld. AO to returned income of the Appellant by relying solely on the Ld. AO's order and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case is bad in law as it is not a speaking order and is therefore against principles of natural justice.

3. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is impugned and bad in law as adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided to the Appellant. The mandatory notice fixing the date and place of hearing under the provisions of section 250(1) of the Act was not duly served on the Appellant at either the email address specified in Form No. 35 [i.e. santeri.kaariainen@yit.fi ] or at the email address provided by the Appellant on the income tax e-filing portal [i.e. klaus.tervila@yit.fi ]. Therefore, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is against principles of natural justice.

3 - 4. We have gone through the order of CIT(A) and the issue is regarding provision for warranty debited by assessee amounting to Rs.2,36,66,664/-. We noted that CIT(A) has not at all adjudicated the issue, how the provision for warranty is created and the terms and condition of warranty. The CIT(A) just passed a non-speaking order as grounds raised by assessee. When confronted, the ld. Senior DR also, could not controvert the above fact situation. As the order of CIT(A) is non-speaking and also ex-parte, as the CIT(A) passed the order without serving notice on the assessee, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to her file for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →