INDUS EDUCATION SOCIETY,LAKHANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT (EXEMPTION) RANGE, GHAZIABAD

ITA 5399/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 February 2024AY 2015-16Bench: the AO.5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dated 13.06.2018, pertaining to an assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2015-16. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on the merits, after the assessee raised several grounds including issues related to the jurisdiction of notice under section 143(2) and disallowances of loan repayments and depreciation.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating any of the grounds or deciding the matter on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded all the issues raised in the grounds of appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, to be decided in accordance with law, after verifying the records about the service of notice under section 143(2) and providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Key Issues

Whether the assessment notice under section 143(2) was served beyond the statutory period; whether repayments of secured and unsecured loans constitute application of income; whether depreciation claim was correctly restricted; and the propriety of the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal of the appeal.

Sections Cited

143(3), 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Hearing: 12.02.2024Pronounced: 14.02.2024

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 13.06.2018 passed by learned CIT(A)-I, Kanpur, for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16.

In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:

That the impugned assessment order is wholly without jurisdiction as notice u/s 143(2) was served beyond a period of six month from the end of the financial year in which return was furnished therefore the same is liable to be set aside as null & void.

2. That the authorities below have has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the repayment of secured loans of Rs.87,42,407 to Bank of Baroda as application of income. 3. That the authorities below have has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that repayment of the same secured loans obtained for setting up the college have been consistently allowed as application of income in preceding assessments u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the repayment of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,41,10,000/-as application of income. 5. That the AO has erred in law and on facts in disallowing both, repayment of secured and unsecured loans without assigning any reasons and without considering detailed submissions and averments filed before the AO. 6. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in restricting the claim of depreciation of the assessee to Rs.98,07,782 as against claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,05,68,862/-7. That the impugned orders of the authorities below is contrary to law, facts and principles of natural justice.

Before us, learned counsel has submitted that in this case notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been served beyond the period of six months from the end of the financial year, for which, the return of income was furnished. It is stated that notice under 2 | P a g e section 143(2) was issued on 29.09.2016, which was served to the appellant-assessee on 3rd October, 2016 vide speed post. In support, affidavit of one Mr. Sudhir Tyagi has been filed. We find that in support of the affidavit, the assessee has not furnished any evidence of receiving of notice by speed post on 3rd October, 2016. Here, in this case, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issue on merits after observing as under: