| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4066 (Mad-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254
Where none appeared for assessee before the Tribunal, however, Tribunal recorded that it had heard the rival submissions, which would mean that both parties were heard, since assessee was under liquidation and Administrator was appointed and he was also represented through a counsel, Tribunal can decide the matter afresh on merits after giving an opportunity to Administrator to put forth their submissions, accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal.
|
Appeal (ITAT) - Order - No hearing Provided to assessee -
AO found that assessee was in receipt of dividend income and that assessee made an investment of Rs. 1,55,24,901 in shares on 31-3-2012, whereas the total investment as on 1-4-2011 was Rs. 1,23,54,78,573. AO not being satisfied with the claim that no expenditure was incurred for investment during the year for earning exempted income, disallowed the amount as per rule 8D(2)(ii) of Income Tax Rules. Held: Before the Tribunal, none appeared for assessee, however, Tribunal recorded that it had heard the rival submissions, which would mean that both parties were heard. However, preamble portion of order showed that none represented the assessee. Since assessee was under liquidation and Administrator was appointed and he was also represented through a counsel, Tribunal can decide matter afresh on merits after giving an opportunity to Administrator represented by his counsel to put forth their submissions. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. : 2011-12
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|