9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has given complete particulars of payment of appeal fee but, if somehow, copy of receipt has not been annexed with the appeal, it was for the ld. CIT (A) to give the assessee an adequate opportunity to bring on record receipts for making the payment of appeal fee. CIT (A) has rather short-circuited the entire process of hearing by summarily dismissing the appeals for non-enclosure of the proof of payment of receipts. So, we are of the considered view that this is a case where that the ld. CIT (A) has not given adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. - remanded the appeal back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the appeal and passed the Impugned Order on the erroneous premise that the appeal is not maintainable for the reason that the proof of payment of fee has not been enclosed in terms of S. 249(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Order, and without going into the particulars involved in the appeal, erred in making the observation that the issues involved in the appeal has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v Chief Commissioner of Income Tax; C.A. 792-793/2014 Without prejudice to the grounds raised herein above the following are the grounds on the merits: 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made u/s 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of 411,05,84,344/ - in respect of reserves/ fund made by the Appellant. 12. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of 35,06,05,545/ - in respect of amount transferred to Maintenance fund and fund for urban services. 13. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. AO erred in making adhoc disallowance of the expenses of ₹ 4,44,60,803/- in respect of Legal expenses, Consultancy, Professional fees an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee as commercial activities. Consequently, AO disallowed amount of ₹ 4,11,05,84,344/-, ₹ 4,70,09,12,532/- & ₹ 1,41,34,83,732/- for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively transferred to various reserves/ provisions after allowing their utilization. AO also disallowed amount of ₹ 35,06,05,545/-, ₹ 15,24,60,860/- & ₹ 51,83,83,332/- for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively transferred to maintenance fund and fund for urban services. AO also made adhoc disallowance amounting to ₹ 4,44,60,803/-, ₹ 9,33,33,493/- & ₹ 5,20,93,863/- for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively in respect of consultancy fee, professional fee and audit free. AO has disallowed an amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orized Representative of the assessee sought adjournment which was rejected by ld. CIT (A) being without any ground and dismissed the appeals ex parte on ground of maintainability on the sole reason that the assessee has not annexed the proof of payment of fee in terms of provisions contained under section 249(1)(iii) of the Act but has not preferred to decide the appeals on merit. 8. However, when we examine the aforesaid facts recorded by the ld. CIT (A) in the impugned order that assessee has failed to annexe the receipt of appeal fees paid in terms of provisions of section 249(1)(iii) of the Act, from Form No.35 it is categorically mentioned in Col.No.16 that the assessee has duly deposited the appeal fee of ₹ 1,000/- each vide B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
