TECHNO PROCESS EQUIPMENTS (I) PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6049/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeal back for de novo adjudication. This was done to ensure justice and fair play, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and for all grounds to be adjudicated.

What were the facts?

The assessee's authorized representative was out of station on the hearing date before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate a ground raised by the assessee regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether all grounds of appeal were properly adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E”, BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Ladiwala
For Respondent: Ms. Neelima Nadkarni
Hearing: 25/04/2019Pronounced: 30/04/2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-24/DCIT-15(3)(1)/IT-296/2016-17 dated 30/06/2017 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 14/12/2016 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

M/s. Techno Process Equipments 2. We find that assessee has raised a preliminary ground that the ld. CIT(A) had passed an exparte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We find that this issue goes to the root of the matter and had to be addressed at the first stage.

3.

From the perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the date of hearing fixed before the ld. CIT(A) was on 29/06/2017 and on that day the authorised representative of the assessee was out of station, hence he could not attend the hearing before the ld. CIT(A) and that the final order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 30/06/2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 3.1. We also find that the assessee had raised the ground regarding the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) in addition to regular ground raised

for addition made towards estimation of remuneration. But the ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground in respect of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, hence, even on this aspect, this appeal had to go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to set aside this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →