M/S. PA FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD.,GUMMIDIPOONDI V. .DCIT, COMPANY CIRCLE, CHENNAI

ITA 2733/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves PA Footwear Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) - NFAC, which was passed due to the appellant's failure to respond to multiple notices. The primary issue was the treatment of the MEIS incentive as income under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the short notice period provided by the AO (five days) was insufficient to gather necessary documents, leading to an ex-parte decision. The respondent supported the dismissal of the appeal, citing the appellant's failure to represent their case adequately. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to remand the case for a fresh assessment with specific instructions to ensure fair hearing procedures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36171 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी जगदȣश, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2733/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2020-21 PA Footwear Pvt. Ltd., 314/C, S R Kandigai Road, Pappankuppam Village, Gummidipoondi – 601 201. PAN: AAACP 1923G Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, LTU, Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - NFAC order dated 27.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. The reason for passing an ex-parte order is that - 2 - ITA No.2733/CHNY/2024 the assessee did not respond to the five notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. 3. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee did not take note of the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority and hence, proceedings before the CIT(A) remained ex-parte. It was submitted that the AO has given only five days time to respond to the proposal for treating the MEIS incentive as income u/s.2(24)(xviii) of the Act. Hence, the necessary documents could not be furnished before the completion of the assessment order. Therefore, it was prayed in the interest of justice, the issues raised in this appeal may be restored to the files of the AO. 3. The ld.DR submitted that the assessee had furnished its e-mail id before the CIT(A) in Form No.35 and also before the Tribunal in Form No.36. It was submitted by the ld.DR that the assessee had failed to represent the case before the First Appellate Authority and there is no justifiable reason for the same. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. - 3 - ITA No.2733/CHNY/2024 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order since assessee had failed to respond to notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. We notice that five hearing notices have been issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. However, there was no response to the same till the CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 27.08.2024. The e-mail id for communication that was mentioned in the Form 35 furnished before the CIT(A) was the assessee’s own e-mail id. The assessee does not have the case that it has not received any of the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remanded for fresh consideration subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order. 5. Since assessee was granted only five days time to respond to the proposal by the AO and assessee having not filed necessary evidence in support of its case, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised in this appeal to the files of the AO. The assessee shall furnish the receipt evidencing the payment of cost of - 4 - ITA No.2733/CHNY/2024 Rs.5,000/- before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall dispose the matter after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th December, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदȣश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 20th December, 2024 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "