Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2015- 16.
The assessee has raised the following grounds: -
“The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. I. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (referred as CIT(A) ) erred in passing ex-parte without providing additional opportunity of ITA No. 5282/M/2018 A.Y.2015-16 hearing and by applying the case of Multiplan oil ground or grounds as contained in the appellate order or otherwise.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,47,53,430/- on account of loss on account of stock valuation oil ground or grounds as stated in the Appellate order of otherwise.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on account of loss on stock valuation in-spite of the fact that the said loss is arising on account of the method of accounting and valuation followed by the Appellant on the ground or grounds as stated in the Appellate order or otherwise.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing the information used by the Assessing Officer u/s 133(6) which has been used by the Assessing Officer without providing any opportunity of hearing in respect of the same.
5. The Appellant crave leaves to add, amend, alter, modify and or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal
, which are without prejudice to one another. The appellant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to direct the A.O. to delete the additions.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 12.10.2015 declaring total loss to the tune of Rs.(-) 11,90,72,037/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 12.04.2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 14.11.2017 was also issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company was engaged in the business of Manufacturer and Trader in Paper & Paper Products. It was observed from the perusal of audited financials that the assessee company has claimed a deduction in sum of Rs.4,23,23,166/- towards interest payment shown as under.:-
ITA No. 5282/M/2018 A.Y.2015-16 S. No. Name of the Loan Amount(Rs.) 1 Interest on Term Loan 17,88,475 2 Interest on others 2,73,83,180 3 Interest on loan 7,79,717 4 Interest on Working Capital 1,23,55,155 4,23,06,527 The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.(-) 20,12,080/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) 48, Mumbai who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and has gone through the case carefully. The assessee did not appear before us. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. We find that it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order on the merits of the case and should not dismiss the appeal for want of non-prosecution.
For this proposition we placed reliance upon the following case laws.
(1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302
(2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC)
Accordingly in the interest of justice we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.
ITA No. 5282/M/2018 A.Y.2015-16 Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on all the issues and restored the matter before the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.