What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings and directed the CIT(A) to confront the assessee's rejoinder report to the AO and decide the matter afresh. This was to ensure the AO had an opportunity to respond to the assessee's submissions.

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that the CIT(A) did not consider the AO's request for additional time and allowed relief based on an incomplete remand report. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's rejoinder to the first remand report was not confronted to the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not providing the AO an opportunity to respond to the assessee's rejoinder to a remand report before passing the order.

DCIT vs M/S. Muthoot Fincorp Ltd… | ITAT Cochin 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH: COCHIN

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sreenivasan, A.R

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR

Hearing: 04.08.2022Pronounced: 04.08.2022

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 10.12.2021 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi in dated 10-12-2021 is in contravention to the 'law, facts and evidences of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi has erred in not considering the request for additional time sought by the AO which was communicated to him on 08/09/2021, which was also informed to the assessee on 09/09/2021.

M/s. Muthoot Fincorp Ltd., Trivendrum

Page 2 of 3 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi erred in allowing relief on the basis of the incomplete remand report despite being intimated that the matter is referred to CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad for verification. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is requested that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.”

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the course of first appellate proceedings, the AO sought an opportunity to send second remand report vide letter dated 6.9.2021. However, Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the request of the AO and passed the assessment order on 10.12.2021 against the revenue. In our opinion, when the assessee has filed the rejoinder to the first remand report of AO, it should have been confronted to the AO by giving an opportunity to the AO. In view of this, we vacate the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to confront the rejoinder report given by the assessee to the AO and decide thereupon in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th Aug, 2022

Sd/- Sd/- (George George K.) (Chandra Poojari) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 4th Aug, 2022. VG/SPS

M/s. Muthoot Fincorp Ltd., Trivendrum

THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MUTHOOT FINCORP LTD, TRIVANDRUM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments