Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘सी” �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी धु�ु� आर.एल रे�ी, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year:2015-16 M/s. Vadim Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner of No. 18 & 19, T.V. Nagar, Near DLF IT Vs. Income Tax (OSD), Park, Mugalivakkam, Corporate Range 3, Chennai 600 089. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AACCV5991Q] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 09.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, dated 29.10.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. Besides raising the ground on merits, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has mainly challenged the ex-parte order on the ground that no sufficient written opportunity was afforded for the purpose of furnishing of supporting material evidences/ explanation as may be required by the ld. CIT(A).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 admitting income of ₹.1,87,37,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. After verification of details submitted by the assessee as well as considering the submissions, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was completed by determining the assessed income of the assessee at ₹.3,96,60,666/- after making disallowance of bad debt claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite having noted the date of hearing, which was fixed at the request made for adjournment by the ld. Counsel on the earlier date of hearing. Hence we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR.
We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the disallowance of bad debt, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has posted the appeal for hearing on 08.11.2018. But, there was no mention about the instance of service of noticing of hearing. In view of the above, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to afford sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee by service of notice of hearing and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 04th October, 2019 in Chennai.