S.C.JAVED AHAMED,VANIYAMBADI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, VELLORE

: Mr.R.K.V.Sundar, Adv. अपीलाथ# क& ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT $%यथ# क& ओर से /Respondent by : 30.10.2018 सुनवाई क& तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 31.10.2018 घोषणा क& तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

In this appeal filed by the assessee, which is directed against an order dated 15.05.2018 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, it has raised the following grounds:

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-appearance / alleged non-prosecution of the appeal with adverse findings on merits on the issues involved in the appeal.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to appear before him and state his case. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds the appellant raises the following grounds on merits for consideration by the Hon’ble Tribunal.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing expenditure of Rs.2,37,510/- incurred by the appellant on account of retrenchment compensation paid to workers. :- 2 -:

5. The appellant submits that the payments aggregating to Rs.2,37,510/- were made directly / individually by cheques to each retrenched worker and are duly supported by separate Quit receipt under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Memorandum of Settlement and Payment Voucher; the Authorities below are not right in holding that the appellant had not adhered to the provisions of statute while making the payments in question.

6. The appellant humbly submits that it appears from the Assessment Order that the appellant’s AR had without the appellant’s knowledge and consent offered the amount of Rs.2,37,510/- as unsustainable expenditure and the Assessing Officer has acted on the incorrect and unauthorized concession made by the appellant’s AR; the appellant disclaims the concession made by his AR before the Assessing Officer. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the claim made for proper credit for prepaid taxes, details of which appear in Form 26AS. 8. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal and render justice.

2. A reading of the above grounds show that assessee is mainly aggrieved that an effective opportunity was not given to it, for presenting its case. Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had a very good case and the claim of expenditure of Rs.2,37,510/- being retrenchment compensation paid to workers could be explained by it.

3. Per contra, Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had given number of opportunities to the assessee but assessee had not cared to enter appearance. As per the Ld.DR, Ld.CIT(A) has decided on merits after considering the grounds and statement of facts filed by the assessee.

4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below carefully. No doubt, the Ld.CIT(A) had given number of opportunities to the assessee to prosecute the appeal but the assessee had not cared to enter appearance. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance retrenchment compensation with a finding that assessee did :- 3 -: not adhere to the provisions of the statute while making payment on account of retrenchment compensation. Now, Ld.AR of the assessee has filed before me, an undertaking that assessee will appear before the Ld.CIT(A), if given one more chance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the case back to the AO for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Undertaking given by the representative of the assessee is taken on record. Ld.CIT(A) shall give one more opportunity to the assessee for entering appearance and thereafter dispose the appeal in accordance with law.

Order pronounced on the 31st day of October, 2018, in Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER