Tata Toyo Radiator Limited, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 7, Pune

ITA 152/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6964 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR KESHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: M. D. SANCHETI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.152/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tata Toyo Radiator Limited, Taco House, V.G. Damle Path, Off Law College Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune- 411004. PAN : AAACT5566F Vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is ultra vires, illegal, bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Violation of Principles of natural justice 2. The learned CIT(A) has thus erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order without granting a proper opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Assessee by : Shri M. D. Sancheti Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 28.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 29.05.2024 ITA No.152/PUN/2024 2 3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the learned CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits, basis the facts available on record and thereby appreciate that one of the ground of appeal, disputing the major addition made by the AO, before him was squarely covered by the orders of Tribunal in the Company's own case/ group Company's case for earlier years. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, Addition of reversal of provision for bad and doubtful debts 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ["AO'] in making addition of Rs. 1,01,47,000 towards allowance of reversal of provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the appellant during the year under consideration. Disallowance of Administrative Service Charges paid to TACO 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the AO of administrative services charges of Rs. 7,56,99,000 paid to Tata AutoComp Systems Ltd. ["TACO"]. Excess-levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating on the levy of excess interest under section 234B of the Act to the extent of Rs.34,671. Excess-levy of interest under section 234C of the Act 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the levy of excess interest under section 234C of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,759. Others 8. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to substitute, and to withdraw any or all of the above ground of appeal.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of parts & accessories of motor vehicles & engines. The assessee furnished return of income for asstt year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.10,49,24,839/-. ITA No.152/PUN/2024 3 The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS & notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the IT Act were issued on 22-09-2019, 23-01-2021 & 07-09-2021 respectively. After considering the replies of the assessee the AO made addition of Rs.1,01,47,000/- towards provision for bad & doubtful debts & also made addition of Rs.7,56,99,000/- towards administrative service charges paid to TACO & completed the assessment vide order dated 30-09-2021. 4. Being aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, LD CIT(A)/NFAC vide order dated 29-11-2023, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with the above ex-parte order passed by LD CIT (A)/NFAC, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Learned AR submitted before us that LD CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. It was further submitted that in a period of 15 days time total 3 notices were issued & therefore no proper opportunity was provided to the assessee to submit his explanations in support of grounds of appeal. It was also submitted that in other companies of the same group similar additions have already been deleted by this Tribunal. ITA No.152/PUN/2024 4 Under these facts & in the circumstances of the case it was requested before the Tribunal to set-a-side the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC & further requested to direct LD CIT(A)/NFAC to re-adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC & requested to confirm the same. 8. We have heard learned counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. We find that LD CIT(A)/NFAC provided total 4 opportunities to the assessee to submit reply in support of grounds of appeal. But it is also apparent that out of 4 opportunities 3 opportunities were provided in a short span of 15 days period, which shows that no proper opportunity was allowed to the assessee. Therefore, we find force in the argument of the counsel of the assessee that principles of natural justice have been violated. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice we deem it proper to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee so that he can substantiate his case by furnishing relevant documents & explanations. Hence without going into the merits of the case we set-aside the impugned first appellate order & remand ITA No.152/PUN/2024 5 the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)NFAC for fresh adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) NFAC shall decide the issue as per fact & law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to furnish relevant submission in support of his case before Ld CIT(A)NFAC on the appointed day without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the CIT(A)NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold & direct accordingly. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised in the instant appeal are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 th May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 29 th May, 2024. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.