TATA TOYO RADIATOR LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 152/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to absence. The assessee contended that insufficient opportunity was provided to present their case, leading to a violation of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without granting a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri M. D. Sancheti
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Hearing: 28.05.2024Pronounced: 29.05.2024

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is ultra vires, illegal, bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Violation of Principles of natural justice

2. The learned CIT(A) has thus erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order without granting a proper opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

3.

Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the learned CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits, basis the facts available on record and thereby appreciate that one of the ground of appeal

, disputing the major addition made by the AO, before him was squarely covered by the orders of Tribunal in the Company's own case/ group Company's case for earlier years. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, Addition of reversal of provision for bad and doubtful debts

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ["AO'] in making addition of Rs. 1,01,47,000 towards allowance of reversal of provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the appellant during the year under consideration. Disallowance of Administrative Service Charges paid to TACO

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the AO of administrative services charges of Rs. 7,56,99,000 paid to Tata AutoComp Systems Ltd. ["TACO"]. Excess-levy of interest under section 234B of the Act

6. The learned CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating on the levy of excess interest under section 234B of the Act to the extent of Rs.34,671. Excess-levy of interest under section 234C of the Act

7. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the levy of excess interest under section 234C of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,759. Others

8. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.

9. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to substitute, and to withdraw any or all of the above ground of appeal.”

3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of parts & accessories of motor vehicles & engines. The assessee furnished return of income for asstt year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.10,49,24,839/-.

The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS & notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the IT Act were issued on 22-09-2019, 23-01-2021 & 07-09-2021 respectively. After considering the replies of the assessee the AO made addition of Rs.1,01,47,000/- towards provision for bad & doubtful debts & also made addition of Rs.7,56,99,000/- towards administrative service charges paid to TACO & completed the assessment vide order dated 30-09-2021.

4.

Being aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, LD CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 29-11-2023, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Being aggrieved with the above ex-parte order passed by LD CIT (A)/NFAC, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

Learned AR submitted before us that LD CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. It was further submitted that in a period of 15 days time total 3 notices were issued & therefore no proper opportunity was provided to the assessee to submit his explanations in support of grounds of appeal. It was also submitted that in other companies of the same group similar additions have already been deleted by this Tribunal.

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 →