9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 164 - AT - Income TaxEx-parte order of CIT-A - Short deduction of tds - services of testing and commissioning availed from BHEL - TDS u/s 194J or 194I - CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it can be seen that the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte order and the CIT(A) has not decided the matter on merit. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to represent his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and present its case failing which the CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the issue as per law on merit.
Issues involved:
Appeal against ex-parte order by CIT(A), Lack of opportunity to present evidence, Failure to decide on merits, Non-consideration of statutory provisions. Analysis: 1. Ex-Parte Order by CIT(A): The appeals were filed against the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not decide the matter on merit and passed an ex-parte order. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a final opportunity to present its case and decide the matter based on facts and law. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) failing which the CIT(A) could decide the issue as per law on merit. 2. Lack of Opportunity to Present Evidence: The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to present evidence in support of its arguments, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted the appellant's contention and decided to give the assessee a final opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A). This step was taken to ensure that the assessee had a fair chance to present its evidence and arguments. 3. Failure to Decide on Merits: The appellant further contended that the CIT(A) mechanically confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer without deciding the case on merits, resulting in a non-speaking order. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit after giving the assessee a final opportunity to present its case. By remanding the issue back to the CIT(A), the Tribunal aimed to ensure a thorough examination of the case based on both facts and legal provisions. 4. Non-Consideration of Statutory Provisions: The appellant raised the issue that the CIT(A) failed to consider the first proviso of section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act along with Rule 31ACB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal noted this contention and decided to partly allow the appeals for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's decision to partially allow the appeals indicated a recognition of the appellant's argument regarding the non-consideration of statutory provisions by the CIT(A). In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues raised by the appellant regarding the ex-parte order, lack of opportunity to present evidence, failure to decide on merits, and non-consideration of statutory provisions. By remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) and granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case, the Tribunal ensured a fair and thorough examination of the issues involved in the appeals.
|
