Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's claim under Section 35(2AB) was rejected by the CIT(A) in an ex parte order. The assessee had submitted an application for Form 3CM to the DSIR, believing it was sufficient and valid.
Held
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and to provide necessary documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without proper enquiry and sufficient cause shown by the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 35(2AB)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 21.04.2025 for A.Y 2018-19. Page 1 of 4
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 35(2AB) at Rs. 1,54,98,219/- is bad in law and against the facts of the case. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not appreciating that the assessee had duly submitted an application dated 12.06.2017, vide Ref. No. ACC/12- 1/2017, to the Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Technology Bhawan, for obtaining Form 3CM. The said application was never rejected by the DSIR, and therefore, the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause and was under the bona fide belief that the application was valid and in order.
The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that submission of application before DSIR dated 12.06.2017 along with "Renewal Certificate" dated 08.11.2017 was sufficient for claiming relief under section 35(2AB), and that there was no requirement to resubmit the same documents.
Therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and, as such, instead of rejecting the claim of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not carrying out any enquiries u/s 250 before rejecting the claim of the Page 2 of 4 assessee and, therefore, prayed for restoring the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
On the other hand, the ld. DR fairly conceded to the above prayer of the ld. counsel for the assessee and raised no serious objection.
After hearing both the sides and considering the above facts and circumstances, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities. allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 29.09.2025.