Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SMT.SUCHITRA KAMBLE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण �यायपीठ �यायपीठ, , , , राजकोट �यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court)
BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.107/RJT/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 M/s.Eagle Motors P.Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT, Rajkot-1 Eagle House Rajkot. Nr. Moti Tanki Chowk Rajkot.
अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �� यथ�/(Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.CIT(DR) सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 26/09/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the ld. Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.Pr.CIT by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) dated 21.12.2015 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2012-13.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed application seeking adjournment or explaining reason for non-appearance before the Tribunal at the time of hearing. We have noted that the appeal has been presented before the Tribunal way back in 11.4.2017 and since institution of the appeal the assessee has been
ITA No.107/RJT/2017 2 given as many as five opportunities to pursue his appeal before Tribunal. Assessee has also moved applications for adjournment on 11.6.2022 and 23.8.2022. On 25.8.2022 also the assessee’s representative made a written request for adjournment which was also granted. On all the occasions adjournment has been sought seeking time to prepare the case. Since considerable time has elapsed and the assessee it appears is not interested in pursuing his case, therefore, we have no other option but to proceed the matter ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the ld.DR and considering the material available on record.
We have noted from the order of the ld.Pr.CIT that revisionary jurisdiction was exercised by him noting that the assessee had claimed payment of interest to the tune of Rs.3,34,57,684/- to various NBFCs on which no TDS had been deducted and the AO had failed to verify the same. He therefore, was of the view that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Before the ld.Pr.CIT no reply was filed by the assessee, in response to notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and accordingly, the ld.Pr.CIT passed his order holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and directed the AO to make fresh assessment after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee on the same.
As aforementioned, before us also, the assessee was unrepresented. Since the assessee has nothing to say against the charge of the Ld.PCIT of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on account of allowing the assesses claim of interest amounting to Rs.3,34,57,684/- to various NBFCs without examining and verifying that TDS was deducted on
ITA No.107/RJT/2017 3
the same, we see no reason to interfere of the order of the ld.Pr.CIT passed under section 263 of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 28TH September, 2022 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 28/09/2022