Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 5619/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Lokesh Kumar, Prop. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ramesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Kotdwar. Durgapuri, Kotdwar. PAN: AJRPK2548R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 22.06.2023 Date of pronouncement: 22.06.2023 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated
11.03.2016 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Dehradun for the assessment year 2011-12.
There is a delay of 139 days in filing the appeal. After perusing the explanation furnished by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to
ITA No. 5619/Del/2016
reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the
appeal for adjudication on merits.
When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of
the assessee despite notice of hearing, being issued through
registered post. The basic grievance of the assessee as per the
grounds raised is against ex parte disposal of his appeal by learned first appellate authority.
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For
the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of
income on 30.09.2011 declaring income of Rs.2,36,836/-. Assessee’s
case was picked up for scrutiny and while completing the assessment
vide order dated 28.02.2014, the Assessing Officer made two
additions. The first one is addition of Rs.38,87,347/- as unexplained
cash credit under section 68 of the Act, being unsecured loan
received by the assessee. The second addition of Rs.26,49,196/- is
on account of estimation of profit from business by applying 8% on
the gross turnover. Assessee contested the aforesaid additions by
filing appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding
the appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition
2 | P a g e
ITA No. 5619/Del/2016
made u/s. 68 of the Act. Whereas, in so far as addition made on
account of estimation of business profit, learned Commissioner
(Appeals) reduced the profit rate to 5%, thereby, restricting the
addition to Rs.18,08,953/-.
We have heard learned Departmental Representative and
perused materials on record. As discussed earlier, the basic
grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of appeal by
learned first appellate authority. On perusal of the impugned order of
learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that though 2-3 notices
were issued to the assessee to represent his case, however, the
assessee remained non-compliant. It was further noticed, the counsel
engaged by the assessee withdrew his power of attorney and
declined to represent assessee’s case any further. In such
circumstances, efforts should have been made to locate the
assessee and serve notice upon him. Since, the appeal before first
appellate authority was decided ex parte, we are inclined to restore
the issues arising in the present appeal back to the file of learned first
appellate authority for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear, the relief
3 | P a g e
ITA No. 5619/Del/2016
already granted by learned Commissioner (Appeals) to the assessee
should not be made subject matter of the fresh proceedings. Grounds
are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/06/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
Dated: 22.06.2023 *aks/-
4 | P a g e