Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY
आदेश / O R D E R
Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai dated 31.03.2016 in for the assessment year 2006-07 passed U/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
The appeal was filed by the assessee with a delay of 343
days. The Ld. AR submitted before us that the Managing Director undergoing treatment for Coronary Disease and therefore was not able to act promptly. Hence, the Ld. AR pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned.
The Ld. DR strongly objected to the submission of the Ld. AR.
However after hearing both sides, we are of the considered view that the delay of 343 days in filing the appeal requires to be condoned because of the genuine constraint faced by the assessee. Therefore we hereby condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.
3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal:-
For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Chennai ["CIT (A)"] was passed without fully considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case.
2. The CIT (A) 3, Chennai failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant company was already liquidated as at the date of initiation of the re-opening proceedings under the income-tax Act, 1961.
For that the reopening of the assessment in the case of the Appellant Company is contrary to the provisions of the Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 beyond 4 years from the end of the assessment year covered under this appeal.
4. That the CIT (A) 3, Chennai brushed aside that the recipients of the amounts were corporate companies and have filed their respective return of incomes for the Asst year covered under this Appeal.
5. For that the Ld. AO as well Ld. CIT (A) 3, Chennai ignored the explanation 2 to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, is governing the case of the Appellant and there cannot be a disallowance relying on the proviso as it was clarificatory in nature.
6. For that the Ld. AD had disallowed the payment of brokerage towards forward booking of the commodities in the Futures as covered under section 43(5)(d) of the Act, 1961 and invoking section 14 A against the expenditure are not tenable under the income tax Act, 1961.
7. For that Ld AD had completed the assessment under section 144 erroneously brushing aside the submission of details called for during the course of scrutiny proceedings is violation of provisions contained in Section 145 of the Act.
For these grounds and such other grounds that may be adduced before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to Hear the case on Merits and pass such orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of exports and imports of pulses and spices, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 28.11.2006 admitting total income of Rs.7,36,530/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act on 07.09.2007 and subsequently the case was reopened U/s.147 of the Act and notice dated 12.09.2012 U/s.148 of the Act was issued on 15.09.2012. Finally assessment order was passed U/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 28.03.2014 wherein the Ld.AO made several additions. When the matter cropped up before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee‘s representative was not present to
At the outset the Ld.AR submitted before us that the assessee Companies’ Managing Director was unwell and therefore was not able to pursue the appeal before the Ld.Revenue Authorities. It was therefore pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee in order to present its case before the Ld.Revenue Authorities because the assessee has fair chance to succeed. It was further pleaded that if no such opportunity is provided to the assessee, the assessee will face great hardships. The Ld.DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR and pleaded for confirming of the order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. The health condition of the Managing Director of the assessee company is not disputed by the Revenue though the Ld.DR vehemently argued in support of the orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity is required to be provided to the assessee
5 of being heard. Therefore in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for de-nova consideration. We also direct the assessee and its representative to co-operate before the Ld.Revenue Authorities in their proceedings, failing which the Ld.Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law based on the materials available on record.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Order pronounced on the 09th May, 2018 at Chennai.