Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2019-20 Automation Network and Service Pvt. Ltd.………….………………….……Appellant Ramchandrapur, Narendrapur, S.O. Elachi (P), South 24 Parganas, West Bengal-700103. [PAN: AAGCA8169F] vs. A.O, Circle-10(1), Kolkata….……….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 31, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : May 31, 2022
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.11.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and in so far is prejudicial to the interest of appellant and is bad in law.
2. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on the principal of natural justice by not providing the reasonable time to appellant in response to the notice issued.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), erred on facts & in law with respect to the claim of Employees contribution towards PF and ESI made under section 36()(va) of the IT Act, 1961 for Rs. 1,91,627.
4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), erred on facts && in law in interpreting the amendments made in Sec 36 & 43B, of Income Tax Act, via Finance Act 2021.
Assessment Year: 2019-20 Automation Network and Service Pvt. Ltd 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), erred on facts & in law with regards to claim of Interest on GST, PF and TDS an allowable deduction under IT Act, 1961, for Rs. 49,232.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), erred on facts & in law by disallowing 100%% expense for non-deduction or non-payment of TDS to resident person.
That the appellant crave leave to add, alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds herein above before or at the hearing of this appeal and request personal hearing before passing any order.”
3. A perusal of Ground No.1 & 2 reveals that the main grievance of the assessee is that the assessee has not been given opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Further, a perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) reveals that the same is an ex parte order. The plea of the assessee has been that a very short notice was given by the CIT(A) and that the assessee was not provided reasonable time to respond to the said notice. After hearing the ld. DR, I am of the view that the principles of natural justice will be well- served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say that CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.