Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH,
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI SONJOY SARMA]
ORDER
PER SONJOY SARMA, JM:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1 Guwahati dated 18.01.2019 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:
1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), Guwahati- 1, Guwahati (‘the CIT(A)’ for short hereafter) has erred in law and in fact in dismissing ground no. 2 before her – a. by holding that there was no merit in the contention that MAT credit due under section 115JAA was not allowed to the appellant; b. without proper opportunity of being heard in as much as the said authority did not call for any particulars at all during the course of hearing; c. without even calling for the assessment records from the ld. Assessing Officer (‘the AO’ for short hereafter); and d. by putting the appellant in a worse situation than before, especially in view of the rectification petition under section 154 pending before the ld. AO on the same issue, a fact clearly mentioned before her.
SRD Nutrients (P) Ltd. AY 2015-16 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to consider and allow the aforesaid MAT credit claimed at Rs. 3289929/- in the return after granting leave to submit all relevant evidence, including additional evidence, if any.
3. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A), as regards the ground no. 2 before her, and remit the matter to the authorities below, for a fresh disposal of the matter after allowing the appellant proper opportunities of being heard.
For that the appellant begs leave of putting forward additional ground/grounds in addition to, modification/substitution of the above ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since the ld. CIT(A) did not allow MAT credit due u/s 115JAA of the Act a sum of Rs. 32,89,929/- to the assessee and did not call for any particulars during the course of hearing and order was passed without calling for assessment records from the AO, therefore, the order was bad in law and he further submitted before us that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee and the issue raised in the instant appeal may be set aside to the file of ld. AO. He further submitted that a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act for the assessment year in question is still pending before the ld. AO for adjudication on the same issue, therefore, the Tribunal may be remand back the matter to the AO to decide the assessee’s MAT credit claim of Rs. 32,89,929/- and may grant leave to submit all relevant evidences in support of its claim.
The ld. DR was fair enough not to oppose such request made by the ld. AR. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view that since the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) did not decide the issue and he did not call for assessment records from the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, we in the interest of justice set aside the impugned order and remit it back to the file of ld. AO for deciding the issue raised before us by way of speaking order. We also direct the assessee to furnish such evidence in support of its claim and remain vigilant in receiving the notice of hearing from the ld. AO. It is also clarified that the assessee should not request for any adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and should file all necessary evidence/documents in support of its claim so as to facilitate the ld. AO for passing the SRD Nutrients (P) Ltd. AY 2015-16 order in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee should be given proper opportunity of being heard.