Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Kumar Rai, D.R. Date of Hearing : 10 . 01 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20 . 01. 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Since common question of law and facts have been raised in both the inter-connected appeals, the same are being disposed of by way of composite order to avoid repetition of discussion.
The appellant, M/s. Networth Agro Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 20.11.2021 & 88/M/2022 2 M/s. Networth Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.
& 25.11.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively on identically worded grounds except the difference in figures of addition inter-alia that:- “.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.22,00,241/- & Rs.12,02,011/- for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively by treating interest income received from bank as Income from Other Sources against Income from Business and Profession offered by assessee company and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of Rs.22,89,093/- & Rs.12,31,358/- for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively by treating genuine expenses incurred and claimed during the normal course of business as ingenuine and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
Your appellant craves leave to add to, amend alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
3. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues in both the appeals at hand are : for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 the assessee did not file the return of income. From the detail recorded in the ITD system it was noticed that the assessee company has undertaken transaction of Rs.21,93,510/- & Rs.24,04,022/- for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively. Consequently assessment was reopened by initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Notices under section 142 (1) & 143(2) of the Act were issued. The assessee filed submissions. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to make addition of Rs.22,00,241/- & Rs.12,02,011/- for & 88/M/2022 3 M/s. Networth Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.
A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeals. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeals.
Present appeals were instituted on 18.01.2022 and thereafter five notices were given to the assessee and in response to which assessee filed four adjournment applications. First three adjournment applications were allowed and fourth one was rejected as the assessee since very beginning has been getting adjournments on the one pretext or the other, the Bench has decided to dispose of these appeals on the basis of material available on record with the assistance of the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue.
We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon.
At the very outset, it is brought to the notice of the Bench that the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been passed on merits rather on account of failure of the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A).
We have perused the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) particularly para 4 wherein 3 notices reportedly issued to & 88/M/2022 4 M/s. Networth Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.
the assessee but in the status column no "compliance" is written. It is nowhere mentioned in the impugned orders, if the assessee was served but has failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). It appears that the impugned orders have been passed mechanically without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. When the assessee has appeared before the Assessing Officer (AO), filed submissions and against the assessment orders filed present appeals it does not appear natural that had he received notice to appear before first appellate authority but has not appeared to argue his appeals.
In these circumstances we are of the considered view that to decide the issue once for all and in order to impart the justice adequate opportunity is required to be given to the assessee. So in view of the matter impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and remanded back to him to decide fresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the apples filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.01.2023.