Case Law Details
York Transport Equipment (India) Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is not empowered to dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution. The case in question, York Transport Equipment (India) Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer (ITO), underscores the necessity for CIT(A) to examine the merits of an appeal before arriving at a decision.
The appellant, York Transport Equipment (India) Private Limited, a company engaged in manufacturing and trading of automotive components, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer, however, made an addition of ₹6,79,82,288 based on transfer pricing adjustments. Dissatisfied with the assessment, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, citing non-prosecution as the reason. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, approached ITAT Pune. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, noted several critical points:
1. Service of Notice: The CIT(A) issued hearing notices through the ITBA portal. However, as per Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and reinforced by the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, service of notice through the ITBA portal is not considered valid. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant was not properly served notice, which is a breach of procedural justice.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
