Loading judgment…
Facts
Interfield Laboratories, a partnership firm, filed its return for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3), partly allowing depreciation and disallowing a claim for bad debts. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal without considering the detailed statements of facts and submissions.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) had failed to adequately consider the assessee's submissions and material on record. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh (de novo) adjudication on the merits of the depreciation and bad debt disallowances.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and facts, and whether the case should be remanded for de novo adjudication on the disallowances of depreciation and bad debts.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 16.05.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing laboratory services. The return of income for AY 2011-12 was filed on 01.01.2011 disclosing Interfield Laboratories total income of Rs. 11,44,097/-. The same was revised on 30.11.2011 at a total income of Rs. 31,28,743/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 27.03.2014 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 50,54,607/-. While doing so, the AO allowed depreciation claim of Rs. 31,09,781/- against the total claim of Rs. 53,98,572/-. The AO also disallowed the claim for deduction of bad debts of Rs., 8,51,124/- for the alleged failure of the assessee to satisfy the conditions precedent for allowance of claim for bad debts.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal without adverting to the statements of facts and the submission made before him. Therefore, he submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR has no serious objection for remanding the matter to the CIT(A).
Interfield Laboratories 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adverting to the statement of facts and submission made before him, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th April, 2025.