9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 254 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10B - AO doubted the status of assessee being 100% EOU - production of additional evidence before CIT(A) under rule 46A - Held that - The assessee had filed the TDS Certificates and details of tax deduction at source in respect of the job work charges and clearing agent charges - This has not been adverted to by the Assessing Officer - Their status as a 100% Export Oriented Unit was accepted - It is not known as to why the Assessing Officer doubted the assessee s status as a 100% Export Oriented Unit - The assessee along with the return, had produced copy of the green card and filed the return of income within the due date and also produced the certificate in Form 56G from the Chartered Accountant - The assessee has been denied fair and reasonable opportunity to put forth their contentions - Once the Officer has accepted the cause shown by the assessee or their Counsel for the purpose of adjournment, and adjourned the matter for a subsequent date, the Commissioner cannot fall back on the reasons assigned, or on account of the fact that the case was adjourned seven times, to reject the appeal - The issue was set aside for fresh adjudication.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Petition under Rule 46A. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Non-supply of remand report to the appellant. 4. Premature passing of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order. 5. Non-adjudication on merits of claims concerning relief under Section 10B, disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia), and Section 43B. 6. Tribunal's failure to adjudicate on merits of additions/disallowances. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Petition under Rule 46A: The appellant argued that the First Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petition under Rule 46A, which sought to introduce additional evidence. The First Appellate Authority concluded that seven opportunities were given to the assessee, and thus, the conditions under Rule 46A were not satisfied. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of vigilance on the part of the assessee. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee contended that the assessment and appellate proceedings were completed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the remand report relied upon by the Commissioner was not furnished to the assessee, denying them an opportunity to respond. The Tribunal did not address this contention adequately. 3. Non-supply of Remand Report to the Appellant: The remand report dated 22.4.2013, which was crucial to the First Appellate Authority's decision, was not communicated to the assessee. This omission was a significant procedural lapse, as it deprived the assessee of the opportunity to contest the findings in the remand report. 4. Premature Passing of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Order: The Commissioner passed the order on 29.4.2013, even though the hearing was scheduled for 15.5.2013. This premature decision was challenged as it indicated a lack of proper consideration of the assessee's submissions. 5. Non-adjudication on Merits of Claims: The assessee raised detailed grounds concerning relief under Section 10B, disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia), and Section 43B. Despite these submissions, the First Appellate Authority did not adjudicate on the merits but dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, citing the assessee's lack of vigilance. 6. Tribunal's Failure to Adjudicate on Merits: The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions and disallowances made in the assessment order. Instead, it focused on procedural aspects, thereby failing to address the substantive claims raised by the assessee. Conclusion: The High Court found that the assessee was denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to present their case. The procedural lapses, including the non-communication of the remand report and the premature passing of the appellate order, were significant. Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration on merits, based on the documents filed by the assessee.
|
