Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
Date of hearing : 13-06-2024 Date of pronouncement : 26-06-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in proceeding u/s. 250 vide order dated 09/08/2023 passed for the assessment year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
Page No. 2 Vinodkumar Ratanbhai Viradiya vs. ITO Sl. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect No. relating to each Ground of appeal 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, - equity & justice.
2. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is bad and illegal as - the grounds taken by the appellant in regards to invalid notice u/s 143(2) of the Income tax Act, has not been specifically dealt with.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in - summarily dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the ground of the validity of assessment order as no order has been passed u/s 127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3)(1), Bangalore to Income Tax Officer Ward - 1(2)(5), Vadodara.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in Rs.41,83,726/- upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,39,45,755/- of unpaid labour barges without adjudicating the ground specifically.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in Rs.25,00,604/- upholding the addition of unapidserive tax of Rs.83,35,347/- by virtue of section 145A(ii) r.w.s. 43B of the Act without adjudicating the ground specifically.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in 39,373/- upholding the addition of adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,31,244/- by invoking Sec. 40a(ia) of the Act without adjudicating the round specifically.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in Rs.1,32,268/- upholding the addition of interest income of Rs.4,40,892/- without adjudicating the ground specifically.
8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in Rs.68,370/- upholding i.e. disallowance of interest expenses of 2,27,889/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without adjudicating the ground specifically.
9. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or - Page No. 3 Vinodkumar Ratanbhai Viradiya vs. ITO modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal Total tax effect Rs. 69,24,341/-
3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee has challenged the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on the ground that the aforesaid notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer-Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore, who is not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessment order itself is bad in law. Further, counsel for the assessee has also challenged the assessment order on the ground that the assessment order is also invalid on the ground that no order u/s. 127 of the Act was passed by the Department for transfer of jurisdiction from ITO, Bangalore to ITO, Vadodara.
4. On going through the instant case, we observe that despite issuance of several notices of hearing on 15-03-2021, 07-02-2023, 21-04-2023, 09-05- 2023 and 01-08-2023, the assessee did not cause any appearance before Ld. CIT(A). We further observe that during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee neither caused appearance and nor filed any written submissions challenging the validity of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, since the assessee failed to make any submissions before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the validity of assessment proceedings, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-appearance and lack of filing of written submissions.
Now, the assessee for the first time, wants to challenge take up this ground of appeal
before us challenging the validity of assessment proceedings. On going through the instant facts, we are of the considered view that since this issue was never adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) because the assessee did not cause appearance before ld. CIT(A) and nor did he file Page No.
4. Vinodkumar Ratanbhai Viradiya vs. ITO any written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the initiation of assessment proceedings.
6. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is being restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to deal with this issue of ground of the assessee challenging the initiation of assessment proceedings. The assessee is also directed to promptly and diligently comply with the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) and cause appearance before ld. CIT(A) and file the required submissions in support of its contentions. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the above directions.