M/S SAIRUNG DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 485/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 September 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without proper consideration of the assessee's case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessment was completed ex-parte by the AO, making additions under various sections due to lack of supporting documents. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions without discussing the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming ex-parte additions without discussing the merits of the case, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68,Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 10-08-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“NFAC”) for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 198 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 27-03-2023 explaining the reasons for delay. On perusal of the same and hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 613 days is condoned.

3.

The assessee raised four grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the addition made by the AO ex-parte of the assessee without discussing the issue on merits.

4. At the outset, we note that the assessment was completed to the best judgment of AO u/s. 144 of the Act inter alia making addition u/s. 68, 36(1)(va) of the Act and disallowance of major expenses. We note that para 8.3 of the assessment order clearly shows that in the absence of any supporting documents, the AO added an amount of Rs.32,96,642/- u/s. 68 of the Act, Rs.4,31,435/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and disallowance of major expenses of Rs.38,50,000/- determining the total income at Rs.63,70,170/- as against Nil income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

5. On perusal of para 3.7 of the impugned order, it is noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO in the absence of any arguments, submissions and evidences filed in support of grounds raised. The ld. AR indicates that the assessee is ready to file evidences in support of its claim and requested the Tribunal to give one more opportunity to the assessee to prosecute its case. The ld. DR did not report any objection in this regard, but however, brought to our notice two circulars issued by the CBDT on 15-11-2017 and 05-03-2019 and argued that the Income Tax authorities shall conduct the assessments relating to cash deposits during demonetization period in accordance with the said two circulars. On perusal of the same, we note that the CBDT issued the said two circulars contemplating SOP for handling of cases related to substantial cash deposit during demonetization period. Admittedly, we find substantial cash deposits made by the assessee in four bank which is evident from para 8.1 of the assessment order. Therefore, taking into facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for its fresh consideration to conduct assessment proceedings in accordance with the SOP in the said circulars. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →