Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed by PP Auto Innovators for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 against orders from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which had confirmed assessments under Section 143(3). The core issues involved the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC and denial of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) credit. The appeals were delayed by 19 days, and the NFAC had dismissed them citing the assessee's failure to file details.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeals. It found that the NFAC's dismissal was based on a factually incorrect premise, as the assessee had indeed furnished the necessary details to both the AO and the NFAC. Consequently, the tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for a de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allowed to furnish fresh evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IC and AMT credit, and whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground of non-submission of details despite evidence of their submission.
Sections Cited
143(3), 80IC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
O R D E R PER BENCH: The appeals in and 2425/Del/2024 for AY 2017-18 1. and 2018-19, arise out of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 26.02.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-36(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
At the outset, we find that both the appeals are delayed by 19 days. The assessee has filed a delay condonation petition together with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. On going through the same, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal and admit both the appeals for adjudication.
& 2425/Del/2024 PP Auto Innovators 3. Identical issues are involved in both the appeals, hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
Though, the assessee has raised several grounds, the only effective issue to be decided is with regard to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act in addition to not allowing Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) credit to the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On going through the order the ld NFAC, Delhi we find that the appeals of the assessee were dismissed on the ground that no details were filed by the assessee in support of the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act and the aspect of AMT credit. This is factually incorrect as assessee had duly furnished the entire details before the ld AO as well as before ld NFAC, which was ignored by the ld NFAC. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore these appeals to the file of the ld NFAC for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of its contentions. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/10/2024.