VINAYLAL SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

Assessee represented by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Institution of Appeal 26/04/2023 Date of hearing 25/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/05/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 30/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. Faceless CIT(A) has erred and was not justified on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition ex parte despite the assessee requesting for adjournment on the date of hearing.

2. Prayer 2.1 The ld. Faceless CIT(A) may be kindly directed to hear the appeal and decide accordingly. 2.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem fir may be granted.

3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.”

Vinaylal Shankarlal Prajapati Vs ITO 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal

.”

2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the appeal of assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) in an ex parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not passed the order on merit as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 31/03/2023 for making submission on or before 24/03/203. The assessee requested adjournment up to 8th April,2023. However, the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 30/03/2023 by taking a view that despite granting three opportunities, the assessee has not given his submission. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee sought adjournment for valid reasons for preparing submission. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order without considering the merit of the case.

3. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of interest expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for want of TDS. The assessee has paid interest to a well reputed Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBSCs). The assessee has made a request to NBFCs for seeking certificate in Form 26A as per Proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and likely to succeed if they are given opportunity to contest the case on merit.