C vs. GRANITES,MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1319/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 August 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits and had passed an ex-parte order without examining the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was heard by the ITAT. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to defend the case. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to consistent non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to the assessee and without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 69B,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 09.07.2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai, in dated 05.03.2019 for the AY 2012-13.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to defend the case of the assessee, therefore, pleaded for one more opportunity. The assessee has raised the following grounds:

1) The learned CIT( Appeals) failed to follow the mandate of section 250(6) as he did not state the points for determination and the decision thereon and the reason for the decision in the impugned order. 2) The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have verified the records of the assessee on the claim of the assessee that interest was not claimed as deduction and ought to have caused further enquiry on the claim of the assessee that there was duplicate reporting of sales in the sales tax return. 3) The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that under reporting of purchases in the profit and loss account will only result in over reporting of profit an addition under section 69B cannot be made unless the assessing officer prove that payment was made outside the books of accounts for such alleged excess purchases. 4) The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without examining the facts surrounding each ground of appeal even though the appeal was to be decided on ex-parte basis. 5) Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in any case ought to have restricted the disallowance of interest to 30% as the amendment made in section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 01.04.2015 will have retrospective effect. 6) The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.

3.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 01.10.2012 declaring the total income of Rs.2,53,180/- and the same was processed u/s.143(1).

Subsequently, this case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Then the assessment was completed with the addition of Rs.16,52,240/- u/s.69B and the disallowance of expense of Rs.4,95,419/- u/s.40(a)(ia).

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

The Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order dated 20.02.2019.

5.

On being Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to substantiate the case of the assessee. Therefore, he pleaded for one more opportunity to substantiate the assessee’s case.

6.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that six adjournments were granted but the assessee failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) be confirmed.

7.

We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below.

8.

Upon perusal of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) dated 20.02.2019, the Ld.CIT(A) has not passed the order on merits and he has not adjudicated the issues raised by the assessee. But simply, he passed an order saying that “there has been consistent non-compliance for the opportunities given during the appellate proceedings as detailed in paragraph 4 above. There is nothing on record to justify any of the grounds of the appeal of the assessee. Hence, I am constrained to dismiss all the grounds of the appeal”.

9.

Considering the above findings of the Ld.CIT(A), we are of the firm opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee has to be given one more opportunity to substantiate the case of the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and remit these issues back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for consideration afresh in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Ld.CIT(A) and assessee should not ask adjournments except for just cause.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →