Voltbek Home Appliances (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 3250 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI B.R. BASKARAN, A.M. & SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. Voltbek Home Appliances (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT ITA No. 2795/Mum./2022 27 April, 2023 Assessee by: Ashu Gosain Revenue by: Vranda U. Matkari ORDER *Sandeep Singh Karhail, J.M.* The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned Order dated 31-8-2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (learned Learned Commissioner (Appeals)), which in turn arose from the intimation dated 22-12-2021 issued under section 143(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 202021. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned. Commissioner (Appeals) ('CIT (A)') has erred in dismissing the appeal without giving any opportunity of personal hearing, disregarding the multiple requests made the by the Appellant for the same in the submissions made before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that intimation asund wh.143(1)(a) is found to be correct on facts and in law without appreciating the fact the expenses are already disallowed by the Appellant in its Return of Income and any further disallowance will lead to double disallowance of expenses for the year under consideration. 3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Intimation Order passed by the Learned. Asst. Director of Income- tax, CPC Bengaluru (Learned. Assessing Officer) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) assessing the total loss of the Appellant at INR 1,78.05,83.995 as against the returned loss of INR 1,78,87,56,549 is bad in law and thus, liable to be quashed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 3250 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI

B.R. BASKARAN, A.M. & SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

Voltbek Home Appliances (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. DIT

ITA No. 2795/Mum./2022

27 April, 2023

Assessee by: Ashu Gosain

Revenue by: Vranda U. Matkari

ORDER

Sandeep Singh Karhail, J.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned Order dated 31-8-2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (learned Learned Commissioner (Appeals)), which in turn arose from the intimation dated 22-12-2021 issued under section 143(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 202021.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:

1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned. Commissioner (Appeals) ('CIT (A)') has erred in dismissing the appeal without giving any opportunity of personal hearing, disregarding the multiple requests made the by the Appellant for the same in the submissions made before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals).

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that intimation asund wh.143(1)(a) is found to be correct on facts and in law without appreciating the fact the expenses are already disallowed by the Appellant in its Return of Income and any further disallowance will lead to double disallowance of expenses for the year under consideration.

3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Intimation Order passed by the Learned. Asst. Director of Income- tax, CPC Bengaluru (Learned. Assessing Officer) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) assessing the total loss of the Appellant at INR 1,78.05,83.995 as against the returned loss of INR 1,78,87,56,549 is bad in law and thus, liable to be quashed.