YOGESHKUMAR V. PANDYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4222/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 March 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of interest expenses and addition of unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the grounds of disallowance of interest and addition of cash credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-44, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-44/ITO.32(3)(2)/ITA-156/2013-14 dated 24-03- 2015. The Assessment was framed by ITO-25(2)(2), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2010- 11 vide order dated 14-03-2013 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that the assessee has raised two issues regarding disallowance of interest expenses for non-deduction of TDS by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and additions of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. For this assessee has raised following two grounds.

Yogeshkumar V. Pandya; AY:10-11

“1. The Learned Assessing officer {The Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(2)(2), Mumbai} has erred in disallowing the Interest expenses amounting to Rs. 2,28,700/- under the provisions of section40(a)(ia) of the IT act 1961 ignoring the fact that TDS has been deducted and paid before the due date of filing the Return of Income and Honourable CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowances made by Assessing Officer.

2. The Learned Assessing officer {The Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(2)(2), Mumbai} has erred in making an addition of amounting to Rs 92,51,000/- as a unexplained cash credit -u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 in spite of furnishing the Loan confirmations and explanation in this regard and Honourable CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing Officer.”

3.

At the outset, we have gone through the order of CIT(A) and noticed that the CIT(A) has not at all discussed the issues and dismissed the appeal ex-parte by observing in Para 4 as under: -

“4. After having filed the appeal, however, despite fixing the case for hearing on 4 different occasions, no credible argument/ explanation has been provided by the assessee to substantiate the claim in respect of grounds of appeal and therefore, the issue cannot be taken up on merit. In the light of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed.”

4. On query from the Bench the learned Sr. DR fairly conceded the position that let the issue be remanded back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

5. After hearing learned Sr. DR and going through the order of CIT(A), we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Yogeshkumar V. Pandya; AY:10-11 CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 21-03-2017.

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 →