M/S. PASWARA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 371/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper appreciation of facts and without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) rejected the claim without proper appreciation of facts or providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee argued that the issue was accepted in earlier years and sought restoration to the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the exemption claim without proper appreciation of facts and without providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL & SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv
Hearing: 23.05.2016Pronounced: 30.05.2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Paswara Electronics Pvt. Ltd Vs. The I.T.O 226, Sector 15A, Noida G.B. Nagar Ward 14 – (2) Noida New Delhi PAN : AADCP 5906 G [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 23.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2016 Appellant by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv Respondent by : Ms. Susan D. George, Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVII, Delhi, dated 28/10/2013 for AY 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as five grounds of appeal. However, at the very outset of the hearing of the arguments, the ld. AR submitted that the issue of exemption had already been accepted in the earlier years and there was no change in the facts. The ld. AR relied on the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd [2013] 355 ITR 1 [Del], Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd Vs. ACIT [2012] 340 ITR 477 [Mad] and Amrit Fees Ltd Vs. ACIT 344 ITR 187 [Cal]. The ld. AR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in coming to a haste and arbitrary conclusion without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case

and the written submissions of the assessee placed on record. The ld. AR also submitted that the claim of exemption u/s 80IC of the Act has been rejected on the basis of bald conclusion against the assessee without any objective reasoning which is also against the principles of natural justice. The ld. AR contended that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

3.

Per contra, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was quite justified in upholding the order of the AO. However, he raised no serious objection to the assessee’s submission that he has no objection if the appeal is restored to the file of the AO for consideration of calculation of claim of exemption u/s 80IC of the Act.

4.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before us. We find from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the issues under consideration have not been decided by the AO in a proper manner and facts have not been appreciated in a judicious manner. We find that the the issue of exemption u/s 80IC of the Act had already been accepted in the earlier years and there was no change in the facts of the present A.Y. We further find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without providing the assessee due opportunity of being heard. On the basis of foregoing discussion and careful perusal of the operative part of the ld. CIT(A)’s conclusion, it is amply clear that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in haste by passing a cryptic order which is not sustainable. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) has also not properly 2

AO’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by applying the ratio of various decisions. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) too has not given due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). However, he raised no serious objection if the appeal is restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication of first appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that the AO shall provide due and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, without being prejudiced with the earlier impugned order. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 80IC

All 1,180 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →