Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad
order : October 18, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.05.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal on the ground of delay in filing of appeal. 2.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in dismissing appeal without any discussions on the merit of additions/disallowance made by Ld. AO.
Assessment year: 2014-15 Goldburn Commotrade Pvt. Ltd 3.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 37,64,557/- on account of other payables. 4.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,81,044/- on account of mismatch in turnover reported in Audit Report and Income Tax Return. 5.) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or adduce any ground/(s) at or before the date of hearing.”
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the above grounds of appeal
to submit that there were only two issues on merits. First one is relating to the confirmation of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of mismatch of turnover in the audit report as compared to the details furnished in the ITR. The second ground is relating to the ad hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer @10% in respect of amount shown under the head ‘other payables’.
4. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex parte order. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that even the ld. CIT(A) has not allowed opportunity to the assessee to present its case on merits. The appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) as being barred by limitation. The ld. counsel has submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 09.12.2016, however, the same was not received by the assessee. He has further submitted that the director of the assessee company at that time was on complete bed rest due to leg injury. Further, that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee company, Mr. Nitesh Agarwal was also sick during the period and therefore, because of the aforesaid reason, the assessee could not look into the fate of his case and resulting into the delay of 152 days in filing the present appeal Assessment year: 2014-15 Goldburn Commotrade Pvt. Ltd