M/S. SERENE SENIOR LIVING PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COPORATE CIRCLE -2,, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1349/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before the lower appellate authority, set aside the impugned order to uphold the principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's claim for bad debts written off amounting to Rs.30,19,19,561/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite adjournments, leading to the appeal being dismissed on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant, violating principles of natural justice, and whether the bad debt claim should be allowed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vii),Section 36(2),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A ’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

Hearing: 14.05.2024Pronounced: 17.05.2024

आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 21.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The registry has noted delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay and reasons deposed at paras 3 of Managing Director of assessee company, we find it sufficient cause hence condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

1.

1. The order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is erroneous in law and opposed to facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in disposing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant. The said order is opposed to the provision of law and principles of natural justice.

3. The NFAC erred in not considering the various documentary evidences filed by the appellant in support of its claim of bad debt.

4. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in observing that no evidence was filed by the appellant either during the course of assessment or during the course of appeal proceedings regarding the fact that the amount advanced was taken into account in computing the total income of the year in which the impugned advance was made so as to become eligible for deduction.

5. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) while disallowing the appellants claim of bad debt failed to see that the said amounts were advanced during normal course of appellant business and that the same has been written off since the aforesaid advances could not be recovered.

6. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ought to have seen that even if the condition laid down u/s. 36(1 )(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the IT Act are not satisfied the said amount written off shall qualify to be allowed u/s. 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961,. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice.

4.

Brief facts of the case is that the assessee e-filed its return of income on 30.11.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.Nil under normal provisions and loss of Rs.(-) 8,44,05,488/- book profit u/s 115JB. Accordingly, the assessment was completed in the case vide order u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2019 assessing the income at Rs.23,75,42,860/- under normal provisions and loss of Rs.(-) 8,44,05,488/- book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Assessing officer (In short ‘AO’) in the assessment order has disallowed the assessee’s claim of bad debts written off to the tune of Rs.30,19,19,561/-.

5.

Further, the appellant filed the appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee did not appear after taking adjournments before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us.

5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not in true sense followed the principles of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given to appellant, appellant would prosecute its case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before the ld. first appellate authority.

6.

Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice and grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee 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 Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same will be furnished by the Assessee before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal on merits.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th May, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →