KAPEL BALDAWA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1293/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 February 2021AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities. However, considering the nature of the addition and in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite several hearing dates. The AO had disallowed expenditure of Rs. 21,00,409/- for lack of bills.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the disallowance of expenditure was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Hearing: 23/02/2021Pronounced: 25/02/2021

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No. 4/10237/18-19/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/19- 20, dated 19/06/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

The assessee has raised three grounds in his appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: -

“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts of the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order on e-portal on 19th June, 2019 itself when the appellant vide its letter dated 11th June, 2019 had requested for posting the case for hearing after 25th June, 2019. The appeal was posted under e-proceedings on the portal for hearing only on two dates i.e., 27th May, 2019 and 11th June, 2019. The appellant had requested for adjournment on the portal on those two dates of hearing. However, ignoring the same, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order stating that none appeared which is contrary to the facts of the case.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in justifying the addition of Rs. 21,00,409/- made by the A.O. without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the case and for untenable reasons.”

3. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. On examining the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte sustain the addition made by the Ld. A.O by agreeing with his view. The Ld.AO in his Order had disallowed certain expenditure aggregating to Rs. 21,00,409/- as not allowable U/s. 57 of the Act because the assessee had not furnished the bills for the expenditures incurred. The Ld. DR argued before us by stating that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee, however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). Under these circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was submitted that the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities do not call for any interference and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on the given dates of hearing. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) was left with no other option except to pass order based on the material available on record. However, taking a lenient view considering the nature addition, in the interest of justice, We hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. At the same breath, We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

More judgments on Section 57

All 1,225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →