Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, BASF India Limited, appealed against orders by the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, which had arisen from orders under Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without considering the assessee's detailed written submissions and supporting evidence, despite the submissions being filed years before the final orders were passed.
Held
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) for a fresh (de novo) adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the submissions and evidence filed by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. Other grievances raised by the assessee do not require adjudication at this stage.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals without considering their submissions and evidence, warranting a remand for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Date of Hearing – 30/10/2024 Date of Order - 06/11/2024
O R D E R PER BENCH
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the separate impugned orders dated23/07/2024 and 24/07/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the orders passed under section 195(2) of the Act, for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2014-15.
& 4837/MUM/2024 (A.Y.2015-16 & 2014-15) 2
During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) at the outset submitted that the assessee filed its submission in response to the notice issued during the appellate proceedings, however, the learned CIT(A) without considering the same dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the order passed under section 195(2) of the Act. From the perusal of the record, we find that for both assessment years, the learned CIT(A) issued hearing notices on 09/03/2020. From the perusal of the paper book filed by the assessee, we further find that the assessee filed its written submission alongwith the supporting documentary evidence in support of its claim on 18/03/2020 before the learned CIT(A). However, we find that the learned CIT(A)vide separate impugned orders dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without considering the submission/evidence filed by the assessee. From the perusal of the impugned orders, we further find that apart from the afore-noted notice dated 09/03/2020, no other notice was issued by the learned CIT(A) for 4 years and the separate impugned orders were ultimately passed on 23/07/2024 and 24/07/2024.
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances as noted in the foregoing paragraph, we deem it appropriate to restore both appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after consideration of the submission filed by the assessee. Since the matter is restored for consideration afresh, the assessee shall be at liberty to furnish any other submission in support of its claim before the learned CIT(A). No order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned & 4837/MUM/2024 (A.Y.2015-16 & 2014-15) 3 CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeals do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment years2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/11/2024