HWASHIN AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1231/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 January 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Mr.JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI MANJUNATHA.G (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed on wrong facts and therefore, it should be reconsidered by the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as infructuous because the CIT(A) wrongly presumed the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Viswas Scheme. The assessee had actually availed the scheme for a different disputed tax amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous based on a mistaken assumption about the assessee's eligibility for the Vivad se Viswas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(3),Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: Mr.JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG & SHRI MANJUNATHA.G

Hearing: 23.01.2024Pronounced: 23.01.2024

आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.: 1231/CHNY/2023 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., vs. Income Tax, F65a, Sipcot Industrial Park, Corporate Circle 1(1), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Chennai. Kancheepuram – 602 105. PAN: AAACH 9909E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Shreyansh Kochar, CA ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.01.2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 08.09.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2016-17.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Automobile and Auto parts, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 29.11.2016 declaring

Rs.82,99,72,844/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act was completed after making downward adjustment of Rs.21,83,52,256/- and assessed loss at Rs.61,16,20,588/-. Subsequently, it was observed that certain income has escaped assessment and accordingly the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) on 16.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 03.04.2021 and the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 28.07.2021 along with reasons for re-opening. In response, the assessee filed reply along with its submissions on 02.08.2021. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s.147 of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2022 by disallowing unrealized forex loss of Rs.9,97,73,769/- and added to the income of the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as infructuous on the presumption that the assessee has opted Vivad se Viswas Scheme. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

We have heard ld. Counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR, present for the Revenue.

4.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 has been dismissed by the CIT(A) as infructuous on the wrong presumption that the assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad se Viswas Scheme 2020. The fact remains that the assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad se Viswas Scheme 2020for the disputed taxes as per the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019. This fact has been fairly accepted by the Ld. DR for the Revenue. From the above, it is clear that the appeal has been dismissed on wrong facts. Therefore, in our considered view, the appeal needs to go back to the file of the CIT(A). Thus, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue in accordance with law.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 23rd January, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 144C(3)

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →