Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17 dated 2.2.2023.
Facts of the case are that the assessee company is in the field of business of undertaking development and construction of residential apartments. The company filed its original return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2018 declaring current year loss of Rs.(-) 1,04,02,808/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 1.8.2017 was issued and M/s. Comfortable Abode Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 served on the assessee company. Due to change in the incumbent officer, a notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act was issued on 10.11.2018. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on 23.11.2018. Accordingly, assessment was completed u/ 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2018 at assessed loss of Rs.6,92,061/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before NFAC. The NFAC has given notices of hearing to the assessee as follows: S.No. Date of issue Date of Remarks compliance 1 20.02.2020 04.03.2020 No written submission filed 2 29.01.2021 04.02.2021 in support of grounds of appeal
. No request of 3 11.01.2023 17.01.2023 adjournment made. 4 18.01.2023 25.01.2023 In view of this non-compliance from the assessee’s side, the NFAC confirmed the order of AO. Against this assessee is in appeal before us by way of following grounds: 1) The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The learned CIT[A] is not justified in disposing off the appeal ex- parte without allowing sufficient and real opportunity to the appellant to represent the case and hence. the impugned order passed requires to be cancelled. 3) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT [A] is not justified in sustaining the addition in respect of notional interest on property advance to the extent of Rs. Rs.89,70,956/- under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4) Without prejudice to the above, and assuming that the impugned disallowance was made in terms of section 36[1][iii] of the Act, the learned CIT[A] ought to have held that the interest paid on M/s. Comfortable Abode Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 4. ICD also had to be regarded as part of the closing work-in- progress of the project and accordingly inventorised under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case.