9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant did not receive the first notice and received only the notices issued by the A.O after the change of jurisdiction hence no opportunity of being heard given - whether the appellant would be prejudiced if the matter had to be heard afresh by the A.O? HELD THAT:- Initial assessment proceedings before the AO were ex parte, for the appellant had not chosen to respondent to the statutory notices. Then, the appellant has approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who secured a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Finally, the appellate authority has confirmed the AO s disallowance under Section 14A of the IT Act but deleted the additions. On the Department s appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has observed that the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 2013. Through that notice, the A.O fixed 19th March 2013 as the date of hearing; the appellant, nevertheless, contends that its agent appeared before the A.O on the next date with written submissions but was informed that the order was passed on the previous day itself. 2. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). On merits, the appellate authority has appreciated the rival contentions and secured a remand report from the AO. Then, based on the remand report submitted by the A.O, the Commissioner (Appeals) has maintained the assessment under section 14A but scaled down the expenditure under other heads. Aggrieved, this time, the Department approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. Eventually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port, the appellate authority has allowed certain deductions, though that authority has not touched the appellant's substantial claim under section 14A of the Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Tribunal has erroneously observed that the appellant has not produced the entire record before the appellate authority. 6. To a specific query whether the appellant would be prejudiced if the matter had to be heard afresh by the A.O, as indicated by the Tribunal, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it amounted to sheer harassment. He has further stressed that the appellant must again go through the remedial hierarchies should the AO s order be negative. So the learned Senior Counsel has urged this Court to set aside the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), who secured a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Finally, the appellate authority has confirmed the AO s disallowance under Section 14A of the IT Act but deleted the additions. 11. On the Department s appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has observed that the appellate authority has displayed haste in deleting the additions without the assessee even agreeing to produce the complete books of account and the supporting evidence. Then, the Tribunal has concluded that it will the interest of justice if the issue is remitted to the file of the AO. The appellant was, thus, given one more opportunity to agitate the issue before the AO and justify its contentions. 12. We, therefore, reckon that the impugned order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
