Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”,MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & MS. PADMAVATHY S.
O R D E R Per Padmavathy S (AM): This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 27/03/2023 for Assessment year 2017-18. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:-
2 ITA 1933/Mum/2023 Prashanti Land Developers Ltd 1. The Ld CIT erred in confirming addition of Rs 7,34,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 2. The Ld CIT erred in confirming an addition of interest Rs.1,09,76,129/- under section 36(l)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961
3. The Ld CIT erred in confirming the addition of unsecured loans o: Rs.47,6 1,18,493/- without complete verification of the identity genuineness and capacity of the lender under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 4. The Ld CIT erred in disallowing interest Rs.l 1,73,09,024/- under section 36(l)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961
The Ld CIT erred in making an addition of disallowance o1 Rs. 5,75,915/- under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962 and adding it back to book profit under section 1 15 JB 6. The Ld CIT erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 7. The Ld CIT erred in confirming the penalty u/s 274 rws 271AAC in respect of income determined under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 8. The Ld CIT erred in confirming penalty u/s 274 r.w.s 270A and 272A(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961
The Ld CIT erred in invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961 which is against the principles of natural justice.”
The assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers. The assessee filed a return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31/10/2017 declaring a total income of Rs.55,44,080/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making the following additions:-
3 ITA 1933/Mum/2023 Prashanti Land Developers Ltd 1. Abnormal increase in cash deposits added Under section 68 of the Act Rs. 7,34,00,000/- 2. Disallowance of interest expenditure Under section 36(1)(iii) Rs.1,09,76,129/- 3. Unsecured loans added under section 68 of the Act Rs.47,61,18,493/- 4. Interest disallowed Rs.11,73,09,024/- 5. Disallowance under section 14A Rs. 5,75,915/-
Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte for the reason that the assessee did not reply to several notices sent from his office. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld.AR during the course of hearing prayed that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed the relevant details, but no proper opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee to represent the case. The Ld.AR further prayed that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to submit the relevant details and represent the case before the assessing officer. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed that all the issue may go back to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification. 5. The Ld.DR objected to the prayer that the issues should go back to the Assessing Officer and submit that the assessee, though was given many opportunities to appear before the CIT(A), did not represent the case before the CIT(A) and, therefore, the Ld.DR argued that the CIT(A)’s order be upheld. 6. We heard the parties and perused the materials on record. We notice that the Assessing Officer has made various additions / disallowances based on certain details filed by the assessee before him. It is the submission of the assessee that proper opportunity was not given before the assessing officer to represent the case.
4 ITA 1933/Mum/2023 Prashanti Land Developers Ltd It is also noticed that the assessee did not represent the case before the CIT(A) and did not respond to several notices issued by the CIT(A) (refer page 4 of CIT(A) order. The CIT(A), therefore has dismissed the appeal exparte without going into the merits for the reason that the assessee has not made any submissions in support of the grounds of appeal filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the assessee be given one more final opportunity to represent the case properly before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we remit all the issues under consideration back to the Assessing Officer for denovo verification. The assessee is directed to file all the relevant details and supporting documents, as may be called for by the Assessing Officer without seeking any adjournments and to co-operate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/10/2023 Sd/- sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) PADMAVATHY S. JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dt :17th October, 2023 Pavanan 5 ITA 1933/Mum/2023 Prashanti Land Developers Ltd प्रतितिति अग्रेतििCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अिीिार्थी/The Appellant , प्रतिवादी/ The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त CIT 3. 4. तवभागीय प्रतितिति, आय.अिी.अति., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाइि/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// Asstt. Registrar / Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai 6 ITA 1933/Mum/2023 Prashanti Land Developers Ltd
Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on 13/10 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 16/10 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM/AM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed Yes