KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3007/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 November 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) ignored adjournment applications and decided based on the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & Dr. M.L.MEENA

Hearing: 08.11.2021Pronounced: 08.11.2021

आदेश / O R D E R PER M.L.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai, in dated 20.08.2019 for the AY 2015-16.

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals exparte without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeals on merit after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

The Ld. DR has fairly agreed to the objection of the assessee that sufficient opportunity of being heard be provided to assessee by the learned CIT appeal before deciding the appeal against him.

4.

Having heard both the sides and perusing the material available on record, we find that admittedly the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by an ex parte order in summary manner as follows:

6. The Assessing Officer has taken note of payments made by the assessee to various financial institutions without making TDS. The assessee has objected to the same claiming that the interest amounts were part of the EMI paid by the company during the year. However, the assessee company has not been able to provide any proof regarding the same. The omission to make TDS while crediting and/or paying interest amount cannot be condoned. The assessee company could have availed of the facility to file Form 26A from the recipient companies. This has also not been done. In view of the same, it appears that the assessee company is not serious in explaining its lapses and why the same should be condoned. The consideration of interest for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) with respect to Rs.55,99,809/- is upheld.

7.

The assessee company does not seem to have any explanation with respect to the payment made to other travels without making TDS. Even in the grounds of appeal, the assessee company has not filed any serious objections to considering the payment of Rs.1,14,17,599/- for disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia). In view of the same, the disallowance with respect to Rs.1,14,17,599/- is also upheld.

8. The assessee company claims that vehicle maintenance expenditure of Rs.66,66,657/- was incurred for day to day running of transport vehicles and hence the TDS provisions are not attracted. However, the assessee company has failed to submit any breakup or any specific explanation in this regard. Considering the same, the disallowance with respect to this amount of Rs.66,66,657/- is also upheld. Together, the entire disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) to the extent of Rs.71,05,220/- is sustained. The grounds are dismissed.

5. From the above, we find that the CIT(A) has rejected the appeals without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has decided the issue based on information on record that is Assessment Order ignoring the adjournment applications filed by the assessee and thus, the assessee has not been heard before taking adverse view against him. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that CIT(A) has not afforded

3 :: proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with the direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merit after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the documentary evidence to be produced in the course of proceedings. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceeding before the CIT(A).

6.

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

Order pronounced on the 08th day of November, 2021, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →