CROWN PLASTO PACK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1277/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 August 2017AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of being heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee's representative could not appear before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) after an ex-parte order was passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Hearing: 01.08.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai dated 23.03.2017 in for the assessment year 2012-13 passed U/s.143(3) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal:-

“1. The order of CIT (A) confirming the order of learned Assessing Officer is against the facts of the case and principles of nature justice.

2. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the capital introduced by the partners was duly explained and the returns of the partners clearly explained this investment. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made in the hands of the firm when this was fully explained by the partner. The learned CIT (A) and the assessing officer failed to appreciate the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 which requires only proving the genuineness of the transaction and in no circumstances the appellant can be asked to prove the creditworthiness of his creditors.

3.

The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the interest was fully paid to various banks and NBFCs and that it was not an accrual entry qualifying for disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act. Moreover the appellant would further like to emphasize the fact that these NBFCs are registered and governed by the policies of RBI and hence the provision of section 40 (a) (ia) would not apply.

4. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions U/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the fact that it’s normal in any trade to take advances from parties against the orders booked. Moreover the cash advances were from various customers wherein the advance amount from a particular customer did not exceed Rs 20,000/-. Thus not violating the provision of section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act 1961.”

3. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted on the earlier occasion before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee could not appear due to unavoidable circumstances and hence the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. The Ld.AR further pleaded that the assessee has a fair case to succeed and therefore one more opportunity may be provided before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR vehemently opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR and prayed for sustaining the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. Though, I don’t appreciate the behavior of the assessee for not appearing before the Ld.CIT(A) on the earlier occasion, however in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) thereby granting the assessee one more opportunity of being heard. I further caution the assessee to co- operate with the Ld.CIT(A) in his proceedings in order to expedite his order, failing which the Ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit based on the materials before him.

Order pronounced on the 01st August, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →