MARIMUTHU SHANKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 985/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 June 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order on the merits of the disallowances. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the limitation period but the delay was condoned due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The appeal raised two issues: disallowance of registration charges and service tax paid.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order on the disallowances made by the AO, and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Hearing: 08.06.2022Pronounced: 15.06.2022

आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in order dated 16.01.2020. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 7(5), Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 17.07.2019

1.

2 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation by 274 days. The appellate order was received by the assessee as per Form No.36 on 30.01.2020, the appeal before Tribunal was filed only on 29.12.2020. We noted that this period of delay comes within the lockdown imposed by Government of India due to Covid-19 pandemic and subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. Respectfully following the same, we feel that the delay needs to be condoned. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3.

The following two issues are raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal i.e., i) Disallowance of registration charges of Rs.10,23,990/- and ii) Disallowance of service tax paid amounting to Rs.3,58,551/-.

4. At the outset, it is noticed that the CIT(A) on merits has not decided the issue by stating that the assessee failed to file any documentary evidence to back up the claims made in regard to 3 above two disallowances. We noted that the CIT(A) just dismissed the issues of assessee by observing as under:- “5.4 On merits, I do not find any substance in the appellant’s arguments against the AO’s actions. No documentary evidences to back up the claims were made. Therefore, even on merits, the case cannot be decided in appellant’s favour.”

4.1 As the CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on the above two disallowances, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh consideration and for passing a speaking order after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file relevant evidences as and when called for, by the CIT(A).

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 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 →