Neelu Singh Chauhan, Bangalore V. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1055/BANG/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Neelu Singh Chauhan against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 40(a)(ia) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The AO had made disallowances amounting to Rs. 42,00,267 and Rs. 11,03,671 respectively. The assessee contended that their submissions were not considered by the CIT(A) before passing the order, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129221 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Tax effect
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

ITA No.1055/Bang/2022 Neelu Singh Chauhan, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1055/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Neelu Singh Chauhan No.22, Valepura, Varthur Post Near Shiva Temple Bangalore 560 087 PAN NO : AQNPC5100G Vs. NFAC Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A), NFAC dated 28.9.2022 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The impugned order passed by the Learned CIT & AO, to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case; 2. The Learned CIT & AO has made addition to the retuned income without considering the submission of the Appellant and thereby violating the principles of natural justice; ITA No.1055/Bang/2022 Neelu Singh Chauhan, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 3. The Learned CIT & AO has erred in law and on facts in making addition of under section 40a (ia) of the Act to the extent of Rs.42,00,267/-; 4. The Learned CIT & AO has erred in law and on facts in making addition of under section 43B of the Act to the extent of Rs.11,03,671/-; 5. The Learned CIT & AO has made impugned adjustments being merely based on presumption and surmises, is to be deleted; 6. The Learned CIT &, AO has erred in law and on facts in denying the benefit of tax credit; 7. The Learned CIT & AO has erred in raising demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act; 8. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234A/B/C/D of the Act; (Total tax effect: Rs.16,38,916/-) On the basis of above grounds and other grounds which may be urged tt the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 250, to the extent it is against the Appellant, be quashed and relief sought be granted. 2. Facts of the case are that in this case the assessment has been made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. While framing the assessment order, the AO has made disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.42,00,267/- and u/s 43B of the Act at Rs.11,03,671/- to the returned income. Against this assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the appellate authority, the assessee uploaded the submissions. However, the same was overlooked by the CIT(A)/NFAC and passed the order confirmed the addition made by the AO. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 2.1 Before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that the first appellate authority has not considered the submissions made before them ITA No.1055/Bang/2022 Neelu Singh Chauhan, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 though it was uploaded before the date of passing of the impugned order and sought an opportunity of fresh hearing before the CIT(A)/ NFAC. In our opinion, the plea of the ld. A.R. is justified. Admittedly, the assessee uploaded the submissions before CIT(A)/NFAC on 26.9.2022 and the NFAC has passed the impugned order on 28.9.2022 without considering the submissions of the assessee in support of the assessee’s claim. Being so, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and accordingly, the issue in dispute on merit is remitted to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee in accordance with law. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 3 rd Jan, 2023. Sd/- (N.V. Vasudevan ) Vice President Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 3 rd Jan, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.