KRISHNA SHEET PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4(3)(1) , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1454/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 June 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without issuing a show-cause notice for the delay in e-filing was a violation of natural justice. The physical filing of the appeal was within the limitation period.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being belatedly filed. The assessment order was served on March 30, 2016, and the appeal was physically filed on April 27, 2016, which was within the limitation period. However, the online appeal was filed late, and the CIT(A) dismissed it without issuing a show-cause notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay in e-filing without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Whether the additions made by the AO under Section 2(22)(e) and Section 14A are justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 2(22)(e),Section 14A,Section 8D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEEAND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

For Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl.CIT) SR DR
Hearing: 19/06/2024

Instant appeal of the Assessee is preferred against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2013-14, date of order 07.02.2024.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-12(3)(1),Mumbai (in short, ‘the A.O.’) passed under section 143(3)of the Act date of order29/03/2016.

Krishna Sheet Processors Pvt Ltd 2. The assesseehas taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“(1) On the facts and Circumstance of the case and in law,

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the Appeal without giving the show- cause notice for condoning the delay in e-filing the appeal.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not understanding that there was no delay in filing the appeal as the appeal was filed in time in the physical mode and thereafter the appeal was e-filed & thereby the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine which is against the principles of the natural justice.

(2) On the facts and Circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not dealing with the following grounds of appeal raised before him

1. The Id. A.O. has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in treating the sum of Rs. 2,33,71,927/- as Deemed Dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act.

2. The Id. A.O. has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in making a Disallowance of Rs. 11,57,531/- u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the I.T. Act.

3. The Id. A.O. has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in not granting the credit of Tax Deducted at Source of Rs. 11,97,920/-.

The appellant craves, leaves to add, to amend, alter, modify and/or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal on or at the time of hearing.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed with an addition amount of 2,33,71,927/- U/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, amount to Rs.11,57,531/- U/s 14A read with rule 8D of IncomeTax Rules, 1962 (in short, ‘the Rules’) and disallowance of credit of interest amount of Rs.11,97,920/-. Against

Krishna Sheet Processors Pvt Ltd these additions, the aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). But Ld.CIT(A) found that the assessment order was served on dated 30/03/2016 and the appeal petition was filed belatedly. On that reason, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

Ld.AR argued and placed that the assessment order was passed on dated 29/03/2016 and served on dated 30/03/2016. After receiving the assessment order, the assessee filed the appeal petition physically ondated 27/04/2016. Copy of the Form No.35 is placed before the Bench. After that the assessee filed the on-line appeal before the CIT(A) which is in delay. But without considering the same or issuing any show cause notice, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The Ld.AR has drawn our attention in relevant paragraph of the appeal order which is reproduced as below:-

“2. In this case as per the facts recorded in the Form 35 the order dated 29.03.2016 was received by the appellant on 30.03.2016. As such the appeal filed by the appellant on 06.06.2016 is a delayed appeal. The appeal is not filed in time and the appellant did not mention about the delay in filing the appeal in column No. 14 of Form 35. The appellant in Column No. 14 of Form 35 stated as "NO" and in Column No. 15 the appellant did not mention any reasons for the delay. 2.1 Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that there is clearly a failure on part of the assessee in filing the appeal in time and lack of diligence and inaction on its part which could have been avoided by the assessee if it had exercised due care and attention.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation.”

Krishna Sheet Processors Pvt Ltd 5. The Ld.DR argued and only relied on the order of the revenue authorities.

6.

We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. Considering the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was ignorant for filing the on-line appeal but was not reluctant for filing the appeal. The appeal petition was filed physically on dated 27/04/2016 which is within the limitation. The ld.DR had not made any objection about the submission of the ld.AR before the bench. The order passed by ld.CIT(A) is violation of natural justice andthe reasonable opportunity was denied. Only on the basis of the verification of Form No.35, the appeal was dismissed. We find that there is no merit in accepting the impugned appeal order and the said order is set aside. We are not expressing any views on the merits of the case to limit the appeal procedure before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the petition and to pass a speaking order considering the grounds of the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set aside proceedings.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →