AMITY THERMOSETS (P) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2140/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 September 2020AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was a violation of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the assessee to rectify the alleged technical defect. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under section 10A, which was disallowed during assessment. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex parte due to an alleged defect in the signing of the memorandum of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing an opportunity to the assessee to rectify a technical defect in the memorandum of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEYAND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 13thMarch 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2013–14.

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing in virtual court, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee to represent the case.

2 Amity Thermosets Pvt. Ltd.

There is no application seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

3.

Brief facts are, the assessee, a resident company, is engaged in manufacture of phenol formaldehyde, moulding powder and phenol formaldehyde resin. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 23rd September 2013, declaring total income of ` 39,01,321, after claiming deduction under section 10A of the Act. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at ` 72,59,591, after disallowing claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Being aggrieved with the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority.

4.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeal ex parte dismissed it in limine alleging that the memorandum of appeal in Form no.35, has not been signed and verified either by the Managing Director or by any other director.

5.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. The basic grievance of the assessee, as expressed in the grounds raised, is against the ex–parte disposal of 3 Amity Thermosets Pvt. Ltd.

the appeal in limine. Undisputedly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal in limine due to a technical defect of non– signing of memorandum of appeal by the Managing Director or any other Director. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is not forthcoming whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex–parte, that too, in limine. As could be seen from the grounds of appeal, it is the claim of the assessee that the memorandum of appeal in Form no.35, was verified and digitally signed by one of the Directors. From the copy of Form no.35 available on record, the aforesaid claim of the assessee appears to be correct. Even, accepting learned Commissioner (Appeals)’s version that the memorandum of appeal was not signed by the Managing Director or Director, it is a mere technical defect for which an opportunity was required to be given to the assessee to rectify the defect. Prima facie, it appears, no such opportunity was given to the assessee by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is in gross violation of rules and natural justice, hence, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, we do so. Consequently, the matter is restored back to the file of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In 4 Amity Thermosets Pvt. Ltd. case, there is any defect in filing of the appeal by the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) must afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee to remove such defect. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced through notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, on 17.09.2020

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →