2021 (11) TMI 1006 - AT - Income Tax

Ex-parte orders passed by CIT-A - Belated payments of employee's contribution to PF and ESI - HELD THAT - We find that the CIT(A) had given only one opportunity to the assessee in both the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20. On the given date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) but, filed written submissions through e-mail/ITBA Module and requested the Ld. Revenue Authorities to dispose off the appeals on the basis of the assessee's written submissions . CIT(A) adjudicated the appeals based on the material available on record. In this situation, considering the issues involved in the appeal as well as the prayer of the Ld. AR, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) in order to consider the issues involved in the appeals for the A.Y. 2018-19 and A.Y. 2019-20 afresh and decide the matter on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20.
2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the appeals for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20.
3. Assessment and additions made by the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20.
4. Ex-parte orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20.
5. Opportunity of being heard and submissions considered by Ld. CIT(A).
6. Remittal of the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered the delay of 99 days and 51 days in filing the appeals for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively, due to the pandemic situation, and condoned the delay to proceed with adjudication on merits.

2. The assessee raised seven grounds in each appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, challenging the addition made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act concerning employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI. The appellant also argued for deductions under various sections and highlighted the need for multiple opportunities of hearing.

3. The assessment for both years involved additions by the Ld. A.O. towards belated payments of employee contributions and profit on sale of assets. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed relief for profit on sale of assets but upheld the additions related to employee contributions. The Tribunal noted the contentions and remitted the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

4. The Ld. AR contended that ex-parte orders were passed by Ld. CIT(A) for both A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, without affording proper hearing opportunities to the assessee. The Ld. DR opposed, stating that sufficient chances were given, but the assessee failed to appear, leading to orders based on available records.

5. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) provided only one opportunity for the assessee to be heard, and in the absence of representation during the hearing, passed orders based on written submissions. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of cooperation from the assessee during the proceedings.

6. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, directed the matter to be reconsidered by Ld. CIT(A) for both A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case. Failure to cooperate may result in appropriate orders being passed by Ld. CIT(A) based on available records. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of delay condonation, grounds raised by the assessee, assessment details, ex-parte orders, opportunities of being heard, and the remittal of the matter for fresh consideration by the Ld. CIT(A).

← Previous Next →