Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Teracom Ltd, engaged in manufacturing and trading optical fibre cables and telecom instruments, filed returns for A.Y. 2010-11. Its case was selected for scrutiny, where the Assessing Officer made various additions, including for bad debts, depreciation on revaluation of assets, disallowance u/s 14A, excess deduction u/s 80IC, and foreign exchange/interest income, leading to a recomputed total income. The CIT(A) partially sustained these additions, which the assessee challenged before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by partially confirming additions without providing adequate opportunity or considering the assessee's evidence and submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the disputed issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring proper opportunity of being heard for the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and this decision also applied to the connected appeal for A.Y. 2011-12.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions without providing proper opportunity and overlooking facts/evidences, and thus whether the additions made by the AO were justified.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 143(2), 142(1), 115JB, 14A, 80IC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH
ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: These two appeals are filed by the assesse against the separate orders of the NFAC Delhi/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and similar, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up A.Y 2010-11 as lead case and facts narrated. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A)
1. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse company is engaged in the business of manufacture & trade of optical fibre cable & accessories, insulated wires, power cables and telecom instruments. The assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 27-09-2010 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,53,49,819/-. Subsequently the assessee has filed revised return of income due to amalgamation of scantec india Pvt Ltd disclosing a total income of Rs.4,15,17,397/- and the book profits computed u/sec115JB of the Act of Rs.29,75,25,833/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire calling for details in respect of claims and the information supporting the return of income filed. In compliance the Ld.AR of the assessee has appeared from time to time and submitted the details. Whereas the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and details and made additions (i) Provision for bad debts and additional depreciation on revaluation of assets in computing book profits u/sec115JB of the Act(ii)disallowance u/sec14A of the Act (iii)excess claim of deduction u/sec80IC of the Act and (iv) foreign exchange on cancellation of contracts and interest income. Finally the assessing officer recomputed the deduction u/sec80IC and with other disallowances
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and granted partial relief and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the information of the assessment proceedings. The Ld.AR mentioned that the CIT(A) has not dealt on the details and evidences filed to substantiate the claims and prayed for allowing the appeal Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issues envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions without providing proper opportunity and overlooking the facts and material evidences. The assesse has filed all the details before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and information supporting the claims of the assessee. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has dealt on the findings of the AO and has not considered the submissions of the &3/PAN/2025,S.A.2&3/PAN 2025. Teracom Ltd. assessee and has not allowed the grounds of appeal
Therefore, we considering the overall facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing and accordingly restore the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits and the CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
7. ITA No.3/PAN/2025.A.Y.2011-12.
As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is similar to A.Y 2010-11 (except variance in figures). Hence the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of appeal of the assesse for statistical purposes.
In the result, the Stay applications filed by the assessee are infactious and are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2025.