Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E”, BENCH
Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
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.
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.