What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the Revenue's consent, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the additional evidence.

The assessee's appeal arose from an order of the CIT(A) which was based on an assessment order. The assessee sought to admit additional evidence and argued that its director's critical illness and subsequent death caused disruption, preventing proper representation before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to extenuating circumstances, and whether additional evidence should be admitted.

R.M Chemicals P Ltd vs DCIT | ITAT Indore 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRIB.M. BIYANI

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 17.05.2023Pronounced: 01.06.2023

आदेश/O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 08.07.2022passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre,Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 10.03.2021 passed by learned National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018- 19, the assessee has filed this appeal.

Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case-records perused.

R.M. Chemicals Private Limited Assessment year 2018-19 3. Ld. AR representing the assessee moves an application under Rule 29 of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of certain evidences, namely (i) Form No. 10CCB filed by assessee on 06.03.2021, (ii) Form No. 67 filed by assessee on 06.03.2021, (iii) Copy of medical report of assessee-company’s director Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, and (iv) Copy of Computation of Income for AY 2018-19.

Then, Ld. AR also drew our attention to the order of first-appeal and very humbly submitted that the assessee could not attend the hearings fixed by CIT(A) since its director Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain was diagnosed with cancer and later on succumbed to it. Ld. AR has placed on record the medical reports. Ld. AR submitted that due to the critical nature of disease, there was a complete blackout in the life and family of director leading to disruption of all matters relating to the assessee-company since it is a family run company and Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain was the main functionary. Ld. AR submitted that the present case involves meritorious grounds to be contested by assessee; therefore the assessee-company should be given a fair chance to represent its case before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee; this would enable the CIT(A) to take an apt decision in accordance with law without any harm to revenue.

Ld. DR showed a sympathetic view and fairly agreed to the prayer of ARfor remanding case to CIT(A) but, however, requested us to direct the assessee to represent its case before Ld. CIT(A) adequately and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

In view of fair consent of Ld. DR to the prayer of Ld. AR and alsohaving regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee,

R.M. Chemicals Private Limited Assessment year 2018-19 uninfluenced by his earlier decision. We also direct the CIT(A) to consider the evidences moved before us, as narrated in foregoing paragraph, in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01/06/2023.

R.M CHEMICALS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT3(1), BHOPAL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments