M/S MATCHLESS INVESTMENT FINANCE AND LEASING LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPLLATE CENTRE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4066/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 April 2024AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had proceeded based on information available with the department and support from Form 26AS. However, since the deductors had revised their TDS returns to show NIL payments to the assessee, this fact warranted verification by the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the revised Form 26AS and decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide the issue on merit, as the primary reason for the appeal was the dismissal by the CIT(A) on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Matchless Investment Finance and Leasing Ltd., is in appeal against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)). The assessment year in question is 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee had financial transactions in FY 2010-11 but had not filed its return of income. These transactions involved payments to contractors and alcoholic liquor. Notices under Section 148 and 142(1) were issued but remained un-responded. The AO made additions of Rs. 90,000/- (30% of contractor charges of Rs. 3,00,000/-) and Rs. 15,51,862/- (income from alcoholic liquor), totaling Rs. 13,41,862/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as inadmissible due to alleged delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as inadmissible due to the alleged delay in filing the appeal, when a more judicious approach could have been adopted and the issue could have been decided on merit. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) was too technical and should have provided more opportunity, specifically mentioning the delay in the notice under Section 250. The assessee also contended that it never entered into the alleged transactions, its business had ceased due to losses, and its name was struck off by the ROC. Furthermore, the deductors of TDS had revised their returns showing payments to the assessee as erroneous, which was supported by revised Form 26AS. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chaturvedi
For Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair

O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (AM)

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 21.09.2023 by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to A.Y.2011-12.

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Matchless Investment Finance and Leasing Ltd., 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under: -

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: -

1. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as inadmissible due to the alleged delay in filing the appeal.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that, being a judicious authority, more opportunity could have been provided to the assessee, and he should have mentioned in the notice u/s. 250 that there is a delay in filing the appeal specifically when he has dismissed the appeal as inadmissible assuming a delay.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) was too technical while dismissing the appeal, he should have applied a judicious approach and should have decided the issue on merit.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO for Rs. 13,41,862/- 5. We pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal is well empowered to admit and decide the appeal to meet the substantial end of justice following its motto of "Nishpaksh Sulabh Satvar Nyay." even though the CIT(A) has dismissed this appeal as inadmissible.

6. The Appellant Company craves leave to add, withdraw, amend or alter any grounds of appeal as and when advised.”

3.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, on the basis of the AIR/NMS data the Assessing Officer came to know that the assessee has done financial transactions in F.Y. 2010-11 but did not file its return of income. Financial transactions are in the nature of payment to Contractors and Alcoholic Liquor. Therefore, to verify the accountability of such transactions notice under section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) was issued and served upon the assessee which went un-responded. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act which was also not responded. The Assessing

Page No. 2

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Matchless Investment Finance and Leasing Ltd., Officer was left with no choice but to proceed on the basis of AIR / NMS information. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is in receipt of Contractor charges amounting to ₹.3,00,000/- and assumed 30% of contract charges as income of the assessee and made addition of ₹.90,000/-. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee is in receipt of ₹.15,51,862/- on account of Alcoholic Liquor on which TDS /TCS has been made by the payers. The Assessing Officer added ₹.15,51,862/- as income from Alcoholic Liquor and assessed the total income at ₹.13,41,862/-.

4.

The assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) but without any success.

5.

Before us, counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee never entered such transactions as alleged by the Assessing Officer. It is the say of the counsel that the assessee is engaged in business of investment, finance and leasing and due to adverse business conditions and recurring losses, the assessee stopped its business and its name has been struck down by the ROC from its register of Companies. The counsel further pointed out that all the deductors of TDS have revised their TDS returns showing the payment to the Page No. 3

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Matchless Investment Finance and Leasing Ltd., assessee as erroneous. The Counsel also showed us the revised Form 26AS.

6.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the information available with the department. The Assessing Officer has also drawn support from Form 26AS. Now, since the deductors have revised the TDS returns showing NIL payment to the assessee, we are of the considered view that this fact needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set-aside the matter to the file of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the revised Form 26AS and decide the issue afresh, after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →