SURAJ NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 240/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 December 2024AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) and the interest of substantive justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 38,00,000/- to the assessee's income under Section 68 after disbelieving the explanation for a transaction. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition as the assessee failed to comply with multiple notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO was justified and whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : November 27, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : December 10, 2024

ORDER

Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal emanates from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 06.12.2023. In this case, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made a transaction of Rs.38,00,000/- with one M/s Dineshchandra R. Agarwal Infracom Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer proceeded to add the impugned amount u/s 68 of the Act after disbelieving the explanation submitted by the assessee. 1.1 Before the ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the assessee did not make any compliance to as many as four notices issued fixing dates for hearing. Needless to say, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any argument or document in support of the assessee.

2.

Aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with as many as five grounds of appeal as under:

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Suraj Nirman Pvt. Ltd. “1. For that the whole order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act), by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), by confirming the addition made by the AO at an income of Rs 64,84,940/-, against the return income of Rs 26,84,940/-, is wrong, illegal and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is against facts and law of the case by confirming the suspiciously adding Rs.38,00,000/-, on the account of transactions made with M/s Dinesdchandra R Agrawal Infracom Pvt. Ltd by the AO. Which is wrong, illegal and unjustified? 3. For that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not providing the proper opportunity to hear the case and submitting the supporting evidence in support of grounds of appeal

. which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.

4. The appellant therefore, pray that the appeal may be admitted and orders may be passed rendering justice to the appellant.

5. Any other grounds that may be let in at the time of hearing.”

3. We have examined the records with the help of Ld. DR as there was none present on behalf of the assessee. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) had given several opportunities to the assessee, but admittedly the same were not availed off. Following this fact he adjudicated, against the assessee, on the issue of justifiability of the impugned addition. 3.1. After considering the documents before us and the averments of Ld. DR, we are persuaded in terms of Ground No.3 (as per the grounds extracted supra) to remand this matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, in the interest of substantive justice. It would be expected that the assessee would be diligent in responding to the notices fixing the case for hearing. The ld. DR had no objection if this matter is to be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A).

4. In result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →