Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee e-filed its return declaring Nil income, which was processed u/s 143(1) and later selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest cost of Rs. 15,61,323/- and assessed total income at Rs. 17,42,330/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appellant assessee did not respond to multiple opportunities granted by the first appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits afresh, with a direction to the assessee to be diligent.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the interest expenses by rejecting the indexation benefit.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 143(2), 142(1), 48
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Belark Communication P. Ltd. Assessment year [A.Y.] 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal ex-parte.
The brief facts under appeal state that the appellant e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.11.2014, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee furnished the details called for through CA. After considering assessee’s submissions, learned assessing officer disallowed the interest cost of Rs. 15,61,323/- from the cost of acquisition of shares and assessed total income at Rs. 17,42,330/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte.
Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the interest expenses of Rs. 15,61,323/- by rejecting the indexation benefit u/s. 48 of the Act.
In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing.
We have perused the records and heard learned representative for the Revenue as none responded for the assessee.
Learned DR has supported impugned order.
After perusal of impugned order, we notice that appellant assessee did not respond to various opportunity granted on 22.05.2019, 31.05.2019, 10.06.2019, 17.06.2019, 21.06.2019, 30.08.2019 and 04.10.2019 by the first appellate Belark Communication P. Ltd. authority. Learned CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass the impugned order ex-parte. However, in the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits afresh. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed in aforesaid terms. Impugned order dated 05.11.2019 is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 30.09.2024.