Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT :
The above six appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the exparte orders of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short CIT(A)/NFAC]. For the sake of convenience, all the above six appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.7,18,16,466/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In the remaining appeals, the assessee has challenged the exparte orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the disallowance of Sugarcane purchase price and addition on account of sale of Sugar to Members at Concessional rates, the details of which are as under :
. year CIT(A)/NFAC Issue order date 1451/PUN/2024 2011-12 17.10.2023 Disallowance of Sugarcane purchase price – Rs.38,56,25,096/- Sale of Sugar to Members at Concessional rate – Rs.5,45,01,790/- 1452/PUN/2024 2000-01 14.12.2023 Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) – Rs.7,18,16,466/- 1453/PUN/2024 2012-13 17.10.2023 Disallowance of sugarcane purchase price – Rs.18,15,70,365/- Sale of Sugar to Members at Concessional Rate – Rs.5,71,40,382/- 1454/PUN/2024 2018-19 18.10.2023 Disallowance of Sugarcane purchase price – Rs.26,01,99,664/- Sale of sugar to Members at Concessional rate – Rs.5,56,45,277/- 1455/PUN/2024 2013-14 17.10.2023 Disallowance of Sugarcane purchase price – Rs.15,90,84,302/- Sale of sugar to Members at Concessional rate – Rs.5,66,51,400/- 1456/PUN/2024 2017-18 31.12.2019 Disallowance of Sugarcane purchase price – Rs.23,07,77,150/- Sale of sugar to Members at Concessional rate – Rs.5,57,88,451/- as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and engaged in the business of manufacture of Sugar from Sugarcane, production of spirit and ENA etc., from the distillery, production of power from co-generation plant and running a petrol pump. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) made addition of Rs.38,56,25,096/- on account of disallowance of excess cane sugar price paid over and above the Fair and Remunerative price (FRP). Similarly, he also made addition of Rs.6,25,49,532/- on account of sale of sugar at Concessional rate to its Members.
3.1 Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A)/NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC in the exparte order passed by him dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that inadvertently, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A)/NFAC. He submitted that the issues decided against the assessee are now covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. However, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the issue on merit as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand, strongly objected to the above arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. He submitted that despite number of opportunities granted by the CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee did not make any submission for which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was constrained to pass the exparte order.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite three opportunities granted by the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee did not make any submission for which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was constrained to pass the exparte order. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and has not decided the issue on merit. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not followed the provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make its submission on the date of hearing without seeking any adjourning under any pretext failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in to 1456/PUN/2024. Following similar reasoning, the grounds raised by the assessee in all these appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes.
CIT(A)/NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.7,18,16,466/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Here also, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution but has not decided the appeal on merit. Following our observations in the preceding paragraphs, we restore the issue to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the above six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposed.
Pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself, i.e. on 12.12.2024.