MILTECH INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 30/NAG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 September 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order confirming an addition of Rs. 40,80,000/- on account of share premium. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering submissions and evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming additions without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. Whether the addition on account of share premium was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Loya
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 21/11/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15.

2.

In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“(1) That the order of the learned Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Nagpur is bad in law and wrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. (2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not considering the written submission filed alongwith supporting evidences and passing ex- parte order. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of learned CIT(A) is improper and highly unjustified.

2 Miltech Industries Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.30/Nag./2024

(3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs.40,80,000/- holding that the share premium received is in excess of the intrinsic value of the shares. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the shares were issued at the price considering the Fair Market Value and the action of both the authorities in not considering the explanation of the assessee is arbitrary and unjustified. (4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in determining and charging interest u/s. 234A and 234B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the action is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.”

3.

When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).

4.

On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities inspite of that the assesse has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not filed relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

5.

I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. I find that though the learned CIT(A) gave opportunities to the assessee, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate his case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 3 Miltech Industries Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.30/Nag./2024 assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/09/2024

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →