ELGI EQUIPMENTS LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NCC 2 , COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1010/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 June 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE, SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits or providing an opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to a 91-day delay in filing, without providing an opportunity to be heard. The assessee had previously received partial relief from the CIT(A) and a subsequent re-assessment by the AO after a remand from the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 35(2AB)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 24.06.2024Pronounced: 28.06.2024

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी ’ �यायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �याियक सद�य एवं �ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBE AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1010/Chny/2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Elgi Equipments Ltd., v. Income Tax, ELGI Industrial Complex, Non-Corporate Circle -2, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 614 005. [PAN: AAACE-4787-E] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. N.V. Narayanan, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune, for the assessment year 2011-12, vide order dated 15.02.2024.

2.

The brief facts are that the assessee is a company and e- filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 29.11.2011 declaring total income of Rs.122,83,67,099/-. The assessment was completed by passing the order U/s.143(3) of the Act on 14.02.2014 by making the additions of :-2-: ITA. No: 1010/Chny/2024 Rs.2,41,94,887/- on various heads arriving at a total income of Rs.125,25,61,986/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) granted partial relief vide its order dated 23.02.2015. Subsequently, aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and the Hon’ble Tribunal remitted back the file to AO to re-examine the issue of weighted deduction @ 200% claimed by the assessee U/s.35(2AB) on the revenue expenditure incurred for its in house research and development facility. As per the directions of the this Tribunal, after examining the details filed by the assessee and discussions with the Ld. AR, the assessment was completed by the AO and restricted the claim of R & D expenditure to 100% and passed the order U/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 on 11.07.2017.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of Assessing officer the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT(A) on 11/11/2017 with a delay in filing the appeal by 91 days.

4.

The ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Pune without giving any opportunity to the assessee or issuing notices for hearing,

:-3-: ITA. No: 1010/Chny/2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order dated 15/02/2024, stating that the appellant was not having ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1, the assessee is before us.

5.

The ld.AR stated that the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal exparte, without giving any opportunity to the assessee is erroneous in law and prayed for remanding the matter back to the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 for adjudication on the merits of the case.

6.

The ld.DR did not raise any objections for the same.

7.

We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1. It is noted that the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 has passed the impugned order exparte without condoning the delay of 91 days and without considering the merits of the case. To meet the ends of justice, we remit back the appeal to the file of the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 for denovo adjudication and direct the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-1 to condone the delay in filing the appeal subject to cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services

:-4-: ITA. No: 1010/Chny/2024 Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld. CIT(A), who shall proceed for de novo assessment. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

More judgments on Section 35(2AB)

All 842 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35(2AB) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →