Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (3) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d appeals, the same are being disposed of by way of composite order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. The appellant, M/s. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), a body corporate established in terms of section 3 of U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 and also registered u/s 12 A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') by filing the aforesaid appeals, sought to set aside the composite order dated 30.07.2018 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Noida qua the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 on the identical grounds except for amount of additions. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal raised in AY 2013-14 are inter alia that :- "1. Because the order passed by Ld. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e for the A.Y. 2013-14 and disallowing the exemption u/ s 11 and 12 to the Appellant. 7. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. AO erred in invoking S. 13(8) r/w S. 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the activities of Appellant as commercial activities without considering the constitution of the Appellant. 8. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. AO erred in invoking the provisions of Proviso to S. 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in contravention of judgement by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Appellant's case. 9. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rred in making disallowance of interest paid by Appellant amounting to Rs. 3,75,49,720/- 16. Because the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. AO erred in disallowing depreciation claimed by Appellant amounting to Rs. 2,02,511/ - in respect of Electrical Fittings." 3. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : The assessee, a body corporate, established in terms of section 3 of U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 and also registered under section 12A of the Act. Initially, the AO reopened the assessment after recording reasons and completed the assessment under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the Act on 27.12.2017, 05.01.2018 & 27.12.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,02,511/- & Rs. 2,26,986/- for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively claimed as depreciation of electrical fittings and thereby assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 455,99,42,800/-, Rs. 506,00,08,550/- & Rs. 210,00,96,720/- for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. 5. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of appeals who has dismissed all the appeals being not maintainable for want of payment of necessary court fees in the absence of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 6. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 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. Ld. 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. Consequently, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT (A) for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 and remanded the cases back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates