9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was credited to the balance-sheet treating it as corpus donation, whereas the said amount was not reflected in the income and expenditure account. Secondly, it took notice of the fact that the activities were commercial in nature, and thirdly, and more importantly, it took into consideration the fact that the registration granted u/s 12AA came to be cancelled vide order passed by the DIT (E), Ahmedabad dated 16th March, 2011. With such evidence on record, the Appellate Tribunal could have decided the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. There was no good reason for the Appellate Tribunal to remit the matter to the CIT (A) so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As noticed in many matters that the Appellate Tribunal has been remitting the matters to the CIT (A) for no good reason, more particularly, when the Appellate Tribunal is able to decide the matter on its own merits. There is one another valid reason for us to say that ordinarily the matter should not be remitted by the Appellate Tribunal to the CIT(A) if the Appellate Tribunal is in a position to decide the appeal on its own merits having regard to the evidence on record. Such remand order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer, preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). It appears that despite number of notices issued by the CIT (A) to the assessee for the hearing of the appeal, the assessee failed to remain present and make his submissions. In such circumstances, the CIT (A) proceeded to decide the appeal on merits in the absence of the assessee. The CIT (A), ultimately, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1,52,00,000/-. 5. The assessee, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT (A), preferred the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal took the view that as the proceedings before the CIT(A) were ex-parte, and the assessee had no opportunity to make good his case, it thought fit to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The revenue, being dissatisfied with such order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, is here before this Court with the present appeal. 6. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue ultimately submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercial manner. ( iii) The registration granted u/s.12AA of the I.T Act by the Hon'ble DIT(E), Ahmedabad too has been cancelled vide his order dated 16.03.2011. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.11(1)(d) of the I.T Act which he is claiming. Therefore, corpus donation u/s. 11(1)(d) of the I.T Act of ₹ 1,52,00,000/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. ( Addition of ₹ 1,52,00,000/-) 3. After scrutiny of the details furnished by the assessee the total income of the assessee is computed as under : Total Income as per return of income ₹ 70,463/- Add: Corpus donation as discussed above u/s. 11(1)(d) (Para 2) ₹ 1,52,00,000/- Assessed Income ₹ 1,52,70,463/- Assessed u / s. 143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 calculate the tax and interest as per the provisions of the Act. Give credit for prepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, observed as under: We have also noticed that the impugned order is passed ex-parte. As noticed in the CIT (A)'s order, notice was served through Chartered Accountant but then, as is the contention of the assessee, the Chartered Accountant did not deal with the matter In intelligent manner and had therefore eventually disengaged by the assessee. We have also been assured by the assessee that given another opportunity of presenting his case before the learned CIT(A) he will scrupulously ensure early disposal of the appeal on merits and shall not resort to any dilatory tactics. Learned Departmental Representative also does not oppose the matter being remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. In view of the above discussion and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. 12. Having regard to the facts of the present case, it may appear that as such there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. However, if the matter is looked into closely, then it has something to do wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court has observed something very pertinent in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor , Tax Appeal No.710 of 2018 and allied appeals, decided on 27th June, 2018. We quote the relevant observations: 7.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. By impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, the Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for afresh adjudication by solely observing that we consider it expedient to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) in the larger interest of justice with a view to enable the assessee to avail opportunity once more. No reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the learned ITAT and learned Tribunal has not at all observed anything on merits of the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Nothing is observed whether assessee was prevented from appearing before the learned CIT(A)and / or there were any justifiable reasons for the assessee not to appear before the learned CIT(A). The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the investment in question, AO was justified in making the addition of unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the learned CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. 16. There is one another valid reason for us to say that ordinarily the matter should not be remitted by the Appellate Tribunal to the CIT(A) if the Appellate Tribunal is in a position to decide the appeal on its own merits having regard to the evidence on record. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the revenue. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashwinkumar K. Patel vs. Upendra J. Patel , reported in ( 1999) 3 SCC 161 , in context with an order of remand passed by the High Court under Order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC, observed as under: The High Court should not ordinarily remand a case under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC to the Lower Court merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
