SMT. SANKAR LAKSHMI,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, VIRUDHUNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3349/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 January 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had the right to pass an ex-parte order. However, to ensure proper adjudication, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee failed to provide reasons for not appearing before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity, and if the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be restricted.

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’ (SMC

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri. J. Pavithran Kumar, JCIT

आदेश / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 17.10.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-2013.

ITA No.3349/2019 :- 2 -:

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 2.

‘’1. The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the assessment order is without jurisdiction, opposed to the facts and contrary to law and therefore liable to be quashed.

2.

The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that the JCIT did not have the power to transfer the case of one assessee from one assessing officer to another assessing officer and therefore should have cancelled the impugned order.

3.The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have given adequate opportunity to the assessee and should not have decided the appeal on ex-parte basis.

4.

The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the major portion of the clearing and forwarding charges represents reimbursement of various expenses incurred on behalf of the assessee to various shipping companies for which there is no liability to deduct tax at source as they had obtained necessary certificates from the income tax authorities.

5.

Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have restricted the disallowance to 30% as the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) will have retrospective effect.

6.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend or modify any or all the grounds before or at the time of hearing’’.

3.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order as assessee had failed to comply with several hearing notices despite due service of notice of hearing.

4. Even before us, the assessee could not make out a case demonstrating as to how he was prevented from not entering appearance before ld. CIT(A). In the circumstances, though we do not find any fallacy in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in passing ex-parte

ITA No.3349/2019 :- 3 -: order. Keeping in view the statutory principle of law that the income tax proceedings are adversarial proceedings. The objects of proceedings are only to determine the correct tax liability in accordance with law. Therefore, we remit the appeal back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication subject to payment of �25,000/- towards Prime Minister national relief fund. We make it clear that ld. CIT(A) shall hear the appeal on being satisfied himself that assessee made contribution towards Prime Minister national relief fund. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly 5. allowed for statistical purpose

Order pronounced on 31st day of January, 2020, at 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 →