NEXUS ELECTRO STEEL LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 951/CHNY/2014Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 February 2015AY 2009-20104 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was passed without application of mind, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the CIT's order to set aside the assessment was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer completed the assessment without examining several crucial issues, including interest expenditure, outstanding TDS, and capitalized expenses. The CIT, finding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, set aside the order and directed a de novo assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order due to the Assessing Officer's failure to apply his mind to various issues. Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI S.S. GODARA

For Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Hearing: 29.01.2014Pronounced: 04.02.2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the validity of the revision order dated 21.03.2014, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Chennai and it relates to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 25.11.2011. The Ld. CIT, on examination of the record, noticed that the Assessing Officer has failed to examine the following issues:-

(a) Interest expenditure of ` 1.17 Crores in foreign currency to non-residents without deduction of tax at source attracting disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (b) Outstanding TDS amount as on the date of balance sheet which would attract disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (c) The amount of ` 33.63 lakhs has been claimed as revenue expenditure even though the same has been capitalized in the books of account. (d) The A.O. has not considered the information furnished by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) relating to evasion of Customs Duty. (e) Belated payment of employees contribution to EPF / ESI attracting disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.

After hearing the assessee on the above said points, the Ld. CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the A.O. to pass an order de novo after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

3.

A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has passed a cryptic order without discussing anything thereon. Though the Ld. A.R. submitted that various issues dealt

3 with by Ld. CIT in the revision order do not warrant any addition, we notice that he could not furnish any document to show that the Assessing Officer indeed applied his mind on the above said issues and has taken a plausible view thereon. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) wherein it has been held that an order passed without application of mind would make the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In the instant case, as already noticed, the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order without application of his mind. Under these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the contentions of the Ld. AR and hence we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →