M/S TRIMURTY INDUSTRIES,CUNCOLIM, SALCETE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 397/PAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 August 2023AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not specifically address the assessee's written submissions, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, claimed deductions under Section 80IB. The Assessing Officer made additions for differences in income, disallowed excess depreciation, and withdrew excess Section 80IB deduction. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without fully considering written submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) adequately considered the assessee's written submissions before dismissing the appeal. Whether the CIT(A)'s order was a speaking order complying with natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 143(1),Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH :: PANAJI

For Appellant: Shri Nagraj Kale, FCA
For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Hearing: 18/08/2023Pronounced: 23/08/2023

(A.Y. 2009-10) M/s. Trimurty Industry, vs DCIT, Circle-1, Plot No. M-20, Cuncolim Margao, Goa. Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Salcette, Goa. PAN: AADFT 1136 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nagraj Kale, FCA Revenue by : Shri N. Shrikanth, DR Date of hearing : 18/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 23/08/2023 O R D E R

Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

1.

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-1, Panaji, dated 02.07.2018 for A.Y.2009-10 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of iron and steel products, filed its return of income on 28/09/2009, declaring total income of Rs. 93,35,758/- after claiming deduction u/sec. 80IB of Rs. 33,96,767/-. The return was processed u/sec. 143(1) and statutory notices u/sec. 142(1) & 143(1) were issued. The assessee submitted explanation, which did not find favour with the AO and accordingly assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3)

M/s. Trimurty Industry making the additions on account of difference in income as per return and computation of income, disallowance of excess claim of depreciation and withdrawal of excess deduction claimed u/sec. 80IB.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). In spite of repeated notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and it was rather requested by the assessee that the ld.CIT(A) that issues may be decided on the basis of written submissions. The ld.CIT(A) after considering the documents/materials available on record, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has not fully considered the written submissions filed by the assessee and prayed for remanding the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication as per law.

5.

Ld.DR has submitted that ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order by considering all the facts and written submissions filed by the assessee, therefore, the submission of the ld.AR for remanding the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) is not warranted in this case and he prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

6.

We have perused the facts and circumstances and heard the submissions of the parties herein. We have given a considerable thought going through the findings of the ld.CIT(A) in his order. That, after going through the documents/materials placed on record, 2

M/s. Trimurty Industry specifically the written submissions filed by the assessee, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has not given his findings specifically regarding the contents of the assessee’s written submissions. There is no iota of evidence provided by the ld.CIT(A) that the decision, that has been taken, has been based considering the submissions filed on record by the assessee. That, even the ld.DR could not substantiate from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that the written submissions of the assessee was considered in totality. The process of judicial adjudication requires Quasi-Judicial authority to adjudicate the submissions of the assessee has to be dealt with specifically with appropriate reasons after conducting due verification. This has not been done by the ld.CIT(A) in his order. In view thereof, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file to adjudicate as per law dealing with the submissions of the assessee specifically and come out with a speaking order complying with the principles of natural justice. The grounds stands allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 23rd August, 2023.

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,094 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →