VINAYAK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, PATNA, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 64/PAT/2023Status: HeardITAT Patna16 October 2024AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to admit additional evidence, call for a fresh remand report from the AO, and pass a speaking order. The assessee was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vinayak Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., failed to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) during assessment and appellate proceedings. The AO made best judgment assessments and additions for unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) also confirmed the additions due to non-compliance and failure to prove the genuineness of transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's failure to provide evidence and attend hearings warrants a fresh adjudication of the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 144,Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & DR. MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Adv
Hearing: 05.09.2024Pronounced: 16.10.2024

आदेश/O R D E R

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The captioned appeals filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are directed against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’) even dated 30.12.2022 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), which is arising out of the assessment orders passed u/s 153A read with section 144 vide order even dated 28.03.2014.

2.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no appearance before the ld. AO and best judgement

3.

The ld. DR was fair enough not to oppose to the request of the assessee for restoring the matter to the lower authorities for afresh adjudication.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records available on record. We observe that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of builder and developer. Assessee was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act carried out at Tirupati Homes Pvt. Ltd., group of cases, Patna on 28th April, 2011. Notices u/s 153A of the Act were issued but there was no compliance thereto. Since, no details were furnished before the ld. AO, based upon the available records ld. AO passed the best judgement assessment u/s 144A of the Act making addition for unexplained cash credit at ₹1,22,86,000/- and ₹2,32,86,590/-. For A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 respectively. There is no doubt to the fact that assessee did not appear before the ld. AO even though it was an assessment post carrying out of search u/s 132 of the Act. Thereafter when the assessee challenged the impugned additions before ld. CIT (A), few details were filed and remand report was called for but again assessee / Authorised Representative of the assessee were not able to avail the further opportunities granted by ld. CIT (A) . The observation of the ld. CIT (A) at page 12 to 13 of the appellate order of the impugned order for A.Y. 2011-12 reads as under:-

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 16th October, 2024 at Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →