M/S MADURA SPINNING & MANUFACTURING LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Madura Spinning & Manufacturing Limited ("Madura" or the "Company" or the "Appellant") respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") against the order passed by Income-tax Officer-Ward - 4(1)(3) ("AO") which was also upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") on the following grounds:

1. The order of the learned AO and the learned CIT(A) are based on incorrect interpretation of law and therefore are bad in law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs. 3,22,060 as against returned income of Rs. 88,920, computed by the Appellant.

3. The learned AO has erred, in law and facts, by disallowing the expense of Rs. 2,33,140 under Section 14A of the Act.

5. The learned AO has erred, in law and in facts, by disallowing an amount in excess of the total administrative expenses claimed by the assessee under Section 14A. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by dismissing appeal for repeated Adjournments and Nonappearance without adjudicating issues on merit. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant thereby confirming the disallowance of expense of Rs. 2,33,140 under Section 14A made by the AO. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO, which was subsequently upheld by the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, contradictory to the provisions of the law and against the principles of natural justice. 9. The learned AO has erred, in law and facts, by considering an incorrect amount of interestunder Section 234B of the Act and Section 234C of the Act in the assessment order. 10. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add. alter, amend, vary. omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law.”

3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as noted by CIT (A) in first Para of his order, hearing was fixed by him on two dates as per two notices issued on 07.07.2018 and 19.07.2018 but there was no compliance against any of these notices. He submitted that as per Para 4 of his order, CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without deciding the disputed issue on merit. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that this is true that two notices were issued by CIT(A) for hearing on 07.07.2018 and 19.07.2018 and there was no compliance by assessee before CIT(A) and the impugned order was passed by CIT(A) on 31.07.2018. But he has not decided the disputed issue on merit. I do not appreciate the action of assessee for not appearing before CIT (A) but at the same time, I do not approve this action of CIT (A) also of dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding the issue on merit and hence, in the interest of justice, I set aside the ex-parte order of CIT (A) and restore back the matter to his file for fresh decision on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the both sides.