Madhavan Nanu Pillai, Kolhapur V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-1, Kolhapur, Kolhapur

ITA 825/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Madhavan Nanu Pillai, the proprietor of M/s. Neeta Instruments, Kolhapur, who appealed against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was initially dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing the merits, solely on the grounds of non-appearance. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found this approach contrary to the principles of natural justice and the mandates of the Income Tax Act, particularly referencing the decision in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF). The ITAT set aside the case to the ld.CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134438 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.825/PUN/2023 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Madhavan Nanu Pillai, Plot No.17, Mane Colony, Samrat Nagar, Dist. Kolhapur – 416108. PAN: ABKPP 3589 J V s The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Circle-1, Kolhapur. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 28/07/2023 Date of pronouncement 31/07/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 09.06.2023 emanating from the assessment order dated 22.12.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.825/PUN/2023 Madhavan Nanu Pillai [A] 2 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and merit in disposing off the appeal on the ground that no compliance has been made when the assessee bad submitted a detailed written submission on 02/12/2009 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and merit in disposing off the appeal without taking into consideration the written submission filed by the assessee thus denying him principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in confirming additions of ? 11,47,249/- in respect of interest earned by “Neeta Instruments Group Gratuity Scheme” a registered group gratuity fund having a separate PAN in the hands of the assessee when such income did not belong to the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)b erred in law and on merit in confirming the additions of ? 180000/- u/s 36(1 )(iii) in respect of advance given by the assessee for purchase of plot, when such advance was given out of own funds and that there was no nexus between the advance given and bank loans availed by the assessee 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)b erred in law and on merit in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)b erred in law and on merit in levying interest u/s 234A, B & C of the Act. 7. The appellant prays for leave to raise additional grounds of appeal if found necessary during the course of appeal and to alter, modify or withdraw any of the grounds raised in the appeal.” Brief Facts of the case : 2. The assessee is proprietor of M/s.Neeta Instruments, Kolhapur engaged in the business of manufacturing of ITA No.825/PUN/2023 Madhavan Nanu Pillai [A] 3 C.I.Castings, Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 27.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,85,78,139/- and agricultural income of Rs.35,518/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 03.09.2015 and served upon the assessee. After hearing the assessee, the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 22.12.2016 determining the assessee’s total income at Rs.4,00,85,390/-. 2.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer(AO), the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities. 5. We have heard ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. The ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in para 6 of the order without discussing merits of the case merely for non-appearance. It is ITA No.825/PUN/2023 Madhavan Nanu Pillai [A] 4 mandatory for the ld.CIT(A) to discuss the grounds of appeal on merit and pass a speaking order. However, in this case the ld.CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order. 5.1 We find that the decision in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)[2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “ This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote. 6. Therefore, respectfully following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court’s decision above and in the principles of natural justice, the case is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. The Assessee shall file all necessary details before the ld.CIT(A) with the first opportunity. Accordingly, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.825/PUN/2023 Madhavan Nanu Pillai [A] 5 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31 st July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31 st July, 2023/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.