Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's ITR for AY 2017-18 was processed by CPC, assessing income at Rs. 52,68,510/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal ex-parte, upholding the assessment of Rs. 45,37,147/- as commission income without deductions and disallowing Section 11 exemption due to delayed filing of ITR and Form 10B. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, citing denial of natural justice and erroneous assessment.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to substantiate their claims. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in treating the entire commission income without allowing expenditure and in disallowing Section 11 exemption due to delayed ITR filing and Form 10B; and whether the CIT(A) order violated natural justice by denying a personal hearing.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 11, 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, : GAUHATI BENCH : GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON’BLE & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, HON’BLE
ORDER
PER MANOMOHAN DAS, JM
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) dated 26.09.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18. Page 1 of 4
The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under:- (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department NFAC, is erroneously in law as well as in facts in directing to take the income of the Appellant at Rs. 45,37,147, as commission income. (ii) That the impugned order in present appeal is against the principles of natural justice as the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, NFAC did not allow a personal hearing as desired by written submission vide response dated 09.03.2020, 03.01.2024 and 24.09.2024 prior to passing the order in appeal. (iii) The impugned order in present appeal is against the principles of natural justice as the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department NFAC did not consider the written submission vide response dated 09.03.2020, 03.01.2024 and 24.09.2024 prior to passing the impugned order in appeal. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department NFAC, is erroneously in law as well as in facts in directing to take whole of Rs. 45,37,147.00 as commission income of the Appellant without granting any expenditure as deduction. (v) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department NFAC, is erroneously in law as well as in facts in directing to take whole of Rs. 45,37,147.00 as commission income of the Appellant without considering the order pronounced by ITAT, Chennai Bench in / Chny / 2022 dated 19.09.2022.
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed its ITR for the AY 2017-18 on 30.12.2017 and the same was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act by the CPC. The CPC vide order dated 03.07.2019 assessed the income of the assessee as the total income of Rs. 52,68,510/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld.
CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.08.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Page 2 of 4 Uttam Kumar Chetia -Vs- The ITO, Ward-1 (3), Dibrugarh AY: 2017-18 6. We observe that, the ld. CIT(A) was constraint to dispose of the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. Ld. CIT(A) issued four notices to the assessee, but the assessee failed to respond. Despite non- participation of the assessee in the appeal proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal of the assessee on merit. The ld. CIT(A) observed that, the disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act by the CPC was correct as there was a huge delay in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act and secondly, 1st appellate authority is not competent to condone such delay as well as no adequate grounds to cause condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B.
Since, the order of the ld. CIT(A) was an ex-parte order, we are in favour of giving another opportunity to the assessee for substantiating his claims before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27.08.2024 and remand the case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for consideration afresh. At the same time, we direct the assessee to substantiate his claims before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR as well as the Ld. DR also have no objection in remanding the case to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Thus, we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes only.