PRECISION EQUIPMENTS (CHENNAI) PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2269/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 December 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issues to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication as the assessee's written submissions had not been considered.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by two days due to the auditor's office being closed due to illness. The appeal concerned disallowances related to EPF & ESI payments and interest expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's written submissions before dismissing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Pronounced: 05.12.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, in dated 30.06.2017 for the AY 2012-13.

2.

Dr.S.Pandian, JCIT represented on behalf of the Respondent and Mr. N.Devanathan, Adv., represented on behalf of the Appellant.

ITA No.2269/Mds/2017 :- 2 -:

3.

The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by two days for which the assessee has filed the necessary condonation of delay petition. It is specified that Shri V.C.Srikanth from the Auditor’s Office who was having the copy of the Impugned Order of the Ld.CIT(A), was suffering from viral fever and had not attended to the Office for the last few days which had resulted in the two days delay. As the reason given in the Affidavit for the delay in filing of the appeal, is found to be reasonable and beyond the control of the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits.

4.

It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the issue in the appeal was against the disallowance made by the Ld.CIT(A) in respect of the EPF & ESI payments in respect of the employees and in respect of the interest expenditure re-paid by M/s.Religare Finvest Ltd., disallowed by invoking the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal by applying the Multi-plan.

It was a submission that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to represent before the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the substantial opportunities have already been granted by the Ld.CIT(A) to the assessee and the assessee failed to represent his appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

ITA No.2269/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that the Ld.CIT(A) has granted the assessee various opportunities. A perusal of the grounds of the appeal more specifically Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal shows that the assessee had filed written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A). These written submissions admittedly, having not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A). In these circumstances, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on December 05, 2017, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →