Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune dated 24-10-2019 for A.Y. 2002-03 as per the following grounds of appeal.
1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,70,46,854j- made by the AO by treating sales tax subsidy as revenue receipt instead of capital receipt. 2.. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,11,97,737/- made by the AO by not allowing deduction under section 80-IA of the act ignoring the judicial, logical and justifiable submission made by the appellant. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 93,88,165/- made by the AO on account of reducing the claim of depreciation on windmills by making various adjustments towards classification of cost incurred towards setting up of windmill project and ignoring the judicial, logical and justifiable submission made by the appellant. and wrongly quantifying the allowable depreciation of Rs. 14,14,063/- instead of Rs. 67,26,563/- by not considering depreciation at higher rate on MEDA charges amounting to Rs. 53,12,500/- in the calculation. 4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,02,500/- made by the AO by treating Advertisement expenses as capital expenditure in nature instead of revenue expense. 5. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in –
Dhariwal Industries Pvt.Ltd. A.Y. 2002-03 - sustaining the disallowance of Rs.1,55,501/- u/s.14A ignoring judicial, logical and justifiable submission made by the appellant - sustaining the disallowance without appreciating the fact that the learned AO had not provided any basis or working of disallowance made by him.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above grounds of appal, if necessary on the basis of written submissions and personal presentation to be made at the time of hearing.”
At the very outset, we observe from the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 24-10-2019 for A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 1.7 and 1.8 of the said order that inspite of several opportunities given to the assessee, there was no compliance on the dates of hearing by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it is evident that the ld. CIT(A) was not able to decide the matter on merits since there were no submissions made on merits by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) had only relied on materials available on record i.e. Form No. 35 along with statement of facts and grounds of appeal. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of the parties have not been substantially adjudicated upon by the ld. CIT(A). It is also correct that the assessee failed to comply with the notices of hearing inspite of several opportunities being given before the ld. CIT(A) but the fact is that the Income Tax Act is a welfare legislation therefore one final opportunity should be granted to the assessee for representation of their case on merits before the ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered view therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-adjudicate as per law and at the same time, we direct the assessee to be present before the ld. CIT(A) through authorised representative or through detailed written submissions based on evidences/documents so that the matter may be adjudicated on merits. We order accordingly. Grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Dhariwal Industries Pvt.Ltd. A.Y. 2002-03
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 23rd day of November, 2022