M.Q. STEEL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 246/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 June 2018AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, which was later assessed at a higher amount by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard. Whether additions made under Section 40(a)(ai) for non-deduction of TDS were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40(a)(ai),Section 194C,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 05.06.2018Pronounced: 11.06.2018

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.10.2017 of ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That, the assessment made U/s 143 (3) and the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer are illegal, bad in law & without jurisdiction.

1.

2. That, the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex- party without appreciating that no notice of hearing has been received by the assessee company.

3. That, the Assessing Officer as well Learned CIT (A) has erred in completing the assessment on an Income at Rs.22,35,150.00 against the Return of Income declaring at Rs.11,97,210.00. The additions/disallowances made at Rs.10,37,936.00 are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the Assessing Officer.

4. That, in view of the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making the M.Q. Steel Pvt. Ltd. addition/disallowance U/s 40(a)(ai) of Rs.1,72,169.00 on account of Clearing & Forwarding charges and Other Expenses on the ground that assessee in default in not deducting the TDS U/s 194C, whereas there is no liability of the assessee company to deduct the TDS on the said payment as per the provision of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. That, the Assessing Officer and as well as CIT (A) has erred, in view of the facts and circumstances, in law and on facts in making the addition/ disallowance U/s 40(a)(ai) of the Act of Rs.11,798.00 on account of Ground Rent and Detention Charges paid for the import of the raw material. 6; That, the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) has erred, in view of the facts and circumstances, in law and on facts in making the addition/ disallowance U/s 40(a)(ai) of the Act of Rs.8,53,969.00 to the Income of the assessee on account disallowance of Shipping/IHC Charges paid to the foreign shipping company.

7. That, The CIT(A) erred in making the enhancement to the income of the assessee appellant without giving proper opportunity, which is illegal, bad in law and against the Principle of Natural Justice.

8. The CIT(A)/Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Appellant to place the evidence/details on record to substantiate its claim during the assessment proceedings.

9. The additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record and also excessive. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same.

10.

The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate, the explanation given in the evidence produced, material placed that has been made available on record has not been properly. considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made.

M.Q. Steel Pvt. Ltd. 11. The interest under Section 234B, 234C & 234D has been wrongly and illegally charged as the Appellant could not have foreseen the additions/ disallowances made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal of the said appeal.”

3. The main grievance of the assessee vide Ground Nos. 2, 7 and 8 relates to the opportunity of being heard not provided by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring an income of Rs.11,97,210/-. However, the assessment was framed by the AO at an income of Rs.22,35,146/- by making the various additions.

5.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte in limine.

6.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also stated that the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed and disposed off the issues raised by the assessee on merit.

7.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that adequate opportunities of being heard were provided by the ld.

M.Q. Steel Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A), therefore, the appeal of the assessee was rightly dismissed as the assessee did not comply with the notices.

8.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte and had not discussed the issues raised by the assessee on merit. He simply stated that the notices for hearing were sent to the assessee but nowhere, it was mentioned that any of such notices was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/06/2018)

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →