9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 685 - AT - Income TaxCIT-Appeals dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution - HELD THAT - CIT(A) ought to have decided the issue in dispute on merit instead of dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution since he has the power of enhancement. At this stage we refrain from commenting anything about the issues raised by the assessee before us. Accordingly we remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A)/NFAC for want of prosecution. 2. Disallowance of expenses by AO under various heads. 3. Failure to provide sufficient opportunity and violation of natural justice by CIT(A)/NFAC. 4. Disallowance of depreciation claimed under section 32 of the Act. 5. Denial of liability for interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Act. Issue 1: Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A)/NFAC for Want of Prosecution: The appeal was directed against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 13.10.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the order of authorities below. The NFAC issued several notices to the assessee, but there was no response from the assessee's side. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing precedents where appeals were dismissed for similar reasons. However, the tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit instead of dismissing the appeal, as the CIT(A) had the power of enhancement. Therefore, the tribunal remitted the entire issues in dispute back to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration after providing another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Issue 2: Disallowance of Expenses by AO Under Various Heads: The assessee, engaged in providing investment advisory services, filed a return of income for AY 2014-15, declaring a loss. The AO, during scrutiny, found that the company had been incurring continuous losses and had debited significant expenses to the Profit and Loss Account. The AO disallowed expenses amounting to Rs. 27,50,26,230, stating that the company had not engaged in any business activity during the year. The AO further disallowed expenses under various heads like salaries, professional charges, travel, database access charges, and staff recruitment expenses. The assessee provided explanations and documents to substantiate the business expediency of the expenses, but the AO concluded that the expenses were not related to business activity. Consequently, the AO computed the total income by allowing only a minimal amount as expenses. The tribunal found the AO's approach to be inadequate and directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to reexamine the issue. Issue 3: Failure to Provide Sufficient Opportunity and Violation of Natural Justice by CIT(A)/NFAC: The assessee contended that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without looking into the records maintained and without providing adequate opportunity as required by law. The assessee argued that the order was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's concerns and remitted the issues for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity to be heard. Issue 4: Disallowance of Depreciation Claimed Under Section 32 of the Act: The assessee claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act, which the AO failed to allow. The tribunal observed that the AO had erred in not allowing the depreciation amounting to Rs. 54,65,906 claimed by the assessee under section 32. The tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to reconsider this aspect while deciding the appeal afresh. Issue 5: Denial of Liability for Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Act: The assessee denied liability for interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Act. The tribunal noted the denial of liability and the lack of opportunity given before the levy of interest. The tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to consider this aspect and provide a reasoned decision on the denial of interest liability. In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted all the issues in dispute back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity to the assessee and deciding the issues on merit rather than dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
|
