Girija Colonisers, Bhopal V. The ACIT1(1), Bhopal

ITA 60/Ind/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Girija Colonisers, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(Appeals) which upheld an addition of Rs.13,53,998 as disallowed interest for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the legality of the reopening of the assessment and the adequacy of the opportunity provided by the CIT(Appeals) for the assessee to present its case. The assessee argued that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment and that the reopening was unjustified. Additionally, the assessee faced technical difficulties with the IT portal, preventing timely responses to notices from the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal, acknowledging these issues, decided to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128945 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Corporation Limited versus CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 60/Ind/2023 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.60/Ind/2023 (Assessment Years:2013-14) GIRIJA COLONISERS, 06, ZONE-1, PRESS COMPLEX, M.P. NAGAR, BHOPAL, Madhya Pradesh PIN-462011. Vs. ACIT- 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Madhya Pradesh PIN-462011 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAHFG7019A Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, ACIT- Sr.DR Date of Hearing 18.05.2023 Dat of Pronouncement 22.05.2023 PER VIJAY PAL RAO (J.M. ): This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30/12/2022 of CIT(Appeals) NFAC Delhi for the assessment year 2013–14. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal as under: (1) The reopening of the assessment is bad in law since there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts. All material was disclosed by the assessee and the assessment was completed after considering all the facts. (1.1) The reopening of the assessment is bad in law. (2)The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not providing the reasonable opportunity. The IT portal was not working in August 2021 and as such no compliance could be made. (3) The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the addition of Rs.13,53,998/- being the disallowance of interest. (4) The addition of Rs.13,53,998/- may please be deleted. (5) The assessee craves to amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal. ITA NO. 60/Ind/2023 2 2. At the time of hearing ld. counsel for assessee has submitted that ground number- 1 has been raised by the assessee as additional ground first time before the tribunal. Since this ground goes to the root of matter and is purely legal ground which can be decided on the basis of the facts available on record and no new facts or material is required to be verified for adjudication of this ground therefore, this ground may be admitted for adjudication. He has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Corporation Limited versus CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC).He has further submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing the ex-parte order. He has pointed out that the CIT(Appeals) has not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the impugned order. He has submitted that none of the notices were sent in physical form but the same were sent at the registered email ID which could not be responded due to non-functioning of IT portal in the month of August 2021. Further, the issue involved in these appeals is regarding addition made on account of interest allowance by treating it as prior period expenditurewhich needs to be explained. Thus he has pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ITA NO. 60/Ind/2023 3 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly submitted that since, the impugned order has been passed by CIT(Appeals) ex-parte therefore, he has no objection if the matter is set aside to the record of the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) for fresh adjudication. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset we note that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte when nobody has made appearance nor any reply was filed to the notices issued by the CIT(Appeals). We find that the the CIT (Appeals) has dismissed these appeals of the assessee due to no reply/ submissions on behalf of the assessee. Since the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(Appeals) due to some technical problem in the IT portal. Therefore, we are satisfied that the assessee was having reasonable reasonable cause for not filing the reply before the CIT(A). Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present it’s case before the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly in the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) and the matter is remanded to the ITA NO. 60/Ind/2023 4 record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the same including the additional grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reopening of the assessment after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in open court on 22 /05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Indore, 22.05.2023 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore