Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Assessee by Shri Rajesh Upadhyay – AR Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR Date of hearing 11.10.2021 Date of pronouncement 12.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad, under section 143(3) of the IT Act, dated 12.12.2018 for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Lr. CIT(A), Valsad has erred in law and on facts to sustained addition made by the A.O. with respect to bank S/B account and F.D. interest at Rs.6,75,284/- without allowing set off of expenses incurred by members’ cooperative society.
2. Lr.. CIT(A), Valsad has erred in law and on facts to decide appellant’s appeal ex partie and that too without going into merits of the appelant’s case. Lr. CIT(A), Valsad has erred in law and on facts to consider the issue of taxability of interest income earned by the society on S/B account and F.D. ignoring the principle of mutuality.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Co-operative society. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1.99 Lakhs. The case Rishikesh Co.Op Housing Society (AY 2015-16) was selected for scrutiny. The assessing officer while passing assessment order made addition of Rs. 6,75,284/- on account of interest on fixed deposits and interest of saving bank account in with Nationalised Bank. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the action of AO was confirmed. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the ex-party order dated 152.12.2018, thus, further aggrieved, the assesse filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard submissions of ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Senior Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in ex-parte proceedings without going through the merits of the case. The ld.AR submits that the notice for hearing on 06.09.2018 was received by assessee. The assessee filed adjournment application on 11.09.2018. Thereafter, second notice of hearing was received for hearing on 18.10.2018. The assessee filed adjournment application on 23.10.2018 as his ld.AR was busy in completion of audit of his clients. The ld. CIT(A) had issued a notice of hearing on dated 28.11.2018 by fixing hearing on 11.12.2018. The ld.AR and CA, Shri Bharatbhai A Desai has attended the hearing on 12.12.2018 instead of 11.12.2018. However, the ld. CIT(A) has completed the order ex- party on the ground that “negligence of the appellant shows that the appellant has nothing to defend against the addition made by the A.O.” The ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on its merits. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity of hearing is granted to him to explain the facts before ld. CIT(A). 2 Rishikesh Co.Op Housing Society (AY 2015-16) 4. The ld.AR for the assessee prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.AR further submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. The ld.AR for the assessee again retreated that no opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if he is given opportunity. The ld.AR for the assessee undertook to be vigilant in attending the hearing before first appellate authority.
On the other hand, the Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee was given ample opportunity as recorded in page 3 of para 3.3 of the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). The assessee failed to comply with the notice issued by the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) left with no option, except to proceed to decide the issue and in absence of any evidence or explanation affirm the action of AO. In alternative submission, the ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that in case the Hon’ble Tribunal is deem appropriate, the assessee be directed to be vigilant and not to default in attending the proceedings and to waste the time of public authorities/ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of Lower Authorities. We find that the AO while passing the assessment order made addition on account of interest income on fixed deposits and in saving banks in nationalised bank.. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by taking view that there is non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Before, us the ld. AR for the assessee undertook to be vigilant 3