SUNIL YASHWNT PATIL,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE SAGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 176/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to apply its mind to the facts and legal position, rendering the order not on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a medical practitioner, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed contract expenses of Rs. 3,18,84,300/- due to non-compliance with statutory notices and failure to justify the expenses. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits or dismissed it for non-prosecution without considering the factual and legal aspects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala
Hearing: 22.04.2024Pronounced: 22.04.2024

order of CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 29.11.2023 u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the appellant.

3.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Medical Practitioner. Return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.58,10,500/-. The case was selected under Computer-assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for examination of ‘Large payments made u/s.194C to persons who have not filed return of income’. On perusal of Form No.3CD, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the appellant made payment to contractors amounting to Rs.3,18,84,300/- and deducted TDS of Rs.3,18,843/- u/s.194C of the Act. The appellant did not either respond to statutory notice u/s.143(2) or notice u/s.142(1). On failure of the appellant to comply with the statutory notices and justify the genuineness of the contract expenses made, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act disallowing the contract expenses of Rs.3,18,84,300/-.

4.

Against the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution without dwelling into the reasoning adopted by the AO.

5.

Being aggrieved by the order of NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

Heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the relevant material on record. We find the NFAC had proceeded to dispose of appeal without discussing the factual background of the addition made by the Assessing Officer and as well as without referring to the legal position applicable to the facts of the case, in our considered opinion the approach adopted by the NFAC does not exhibit that the NFAC had applied mind to the facts of the present case and arrived at a conclusion. Therefore, it cannot be termed that the order passed by the NFAC is on merits. Thus, the order passed by the NFAC is hereby set-aside and remanded to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction that the issue in appeal should be adjudicated de novo in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of April, 2024.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →