ACCUTEST RESEARCH LABORATORIES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMIITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5960/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 December 2024AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI VICE PRESIDENT (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the AO may not have issued the requisite show cause notice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee also claimed that the AO failed to issue a show cause notice as prescribed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard and whether the AO failed to issue a mandatory show cause notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144B(1)(xii),Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Hearing: 31.12.2024Pronounced: 31.12.2024

Assessee by : Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date of Hearing 31.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 24.09.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

A.Y. 2021-22 Accutest Research Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. “1. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in passing the assessment order without issuing show cause notice as prescribed in clause (xii) of section 144B(1) of the Act 2. The CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and dismissing 6 the appeal of the Appellant without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard 3. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in making the disallowance of Rs. 4,21,31,073/- being Rs.20% of Rs. 21,06,55,364/- representing various business expenses 4. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) for Rs. 15,08,598/- being 30% of Rs. 50,28,663/- 5. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in 3 making the disallowance of Rs. 18,81,455/- (20% of Rs. 94,07,277/-) being commission paid 6. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in making the disallowance of Rs. 8,84,825/- being commission paid 7. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the action of the AO in giving TDS credit of Rs. 1,17,54,542/- as against Rs. 1,18,54,085/- claimed by the Appellant in the return of income resulting into short TDS credit of Rs. 99,543”

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return declaring nil income on 07.01.2022. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 11,40,98,026/- after making disallowances out of various expenses vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 26.12.2022.

4.

Aggrieved with the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The case was fixed for hearing on three occasions and every time request for adjournment was made by the assessee. However, in respect of last such request made on 18.09.2024, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 24.09.2024.

5.

Aggrieved with this order, Ld. CIT(A) is in appeal before us. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was not provided an adequate opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, Ld. AO also did not issue requisite show A.Y. 2021-22 Accutest Research Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. cause notice u/s 144B (1)(xii) to the assessee. Further, the request of the assessee for hearing through video conferring was also denied by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, Ld. AR has requested for remanding the matter to the Ld. AO for proper examination of the assessee’s submissions. Ld. DR has not objected to this proposition made by the Ld. AR.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the file of Ld. AO for a fresh adjudication. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. AO.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.12.2024.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →