GANESH DIGITAL NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 27/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 August 2024AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back for fresh consideration in the interest of natural justice. The assessee was directed to pay a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment scheme on the issue of share capital. The assessee failed to provide complete information and submissions to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The assessee claimed to have filed two appeals by mistake and did not respond to one of them.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration due to procedural lapses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Hearing: 27/08/2024

Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15/11/2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment scheme, 2019 on the issue of “Share Capital/Other

1.

Page 1 of 3 Capital”. Therefore, the assessee was served notice u/s 143(2) on 28.09.2019 on the email given by the assessee. In response, the assessee replied and submitted the information partly. Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued along with detailed questionnaire to the assessee to which the assessee did not reply or filed any written submission before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and determined the sum payable u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as per the provisions of the Act and penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated separately.

3.

Bering aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). The assessee explained that the appellant has filed two appeals by mistake and the learned CIT (A) has issued notices simultaneously on both appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee has filed reply in respect of one appeal and submitted that the said appeal being duplicate and needs to be withdrawn. The assessee did not file reply to the other appeal by mistake. Therefore, submitted that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT (A).

4.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A) to substantiate its case with proper documents/evidence.

1.

Page 2 of 3 Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) and restore the issue back to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is hereby directed to pay nominal cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Telangana State Legal Aide Authorities at the Hon'ble Telangana High Court and produce the proof of payment to the registry within 30 days from the date of this order.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →