Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 28.11.2019.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1(i) That on facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without proper opportunity or service of notice.
(ii) That in absence of proper opportunity, the impugned order has been passed in total disregard to principles of natural justice.
(iii) That there being no proper adjudication in terms of provisions of u/s 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the impugned order is invalid and not sustainable under the law.
2(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,27,35,024/- in respect of advances received from customers without proper appreciation of facts or proper opportunity.
(ii) That the advances having been received in the regular course of business and corroborated from relevant documentary evidence, the impugned addition is highly arbitrary and mechanical basis.
(iii) That assessing officer has even failed to specify the section or provision under which addition was made and in absence of any adverse material or information, the impugned addition is unsustainable on facts and under the law.
3. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition to the extent of Rs. 8,037/- in respect of short excess and interest on TDS without appreciating the facts of the case.
4(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming ad-hoc disallowance to the extent of Rs. 59,960/- being 20% of claim of various expenses in total disregard to facts of the case and settled legal position.
(ii) That the claim of various expenses being supported from audited books of account and the assessing office having failed to point out any specific defect, the impugned ad-hoc disallowance is misconceived and without any basis.
(iii) That the expenses being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and same being duly supported with relevant documentary evidence, the impugned ad-hoc disallowance is not sustainable on facts and same is bad in law.”
The assessee company filed return of income on 14.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.23,97,553/-which was assessed at Rs.104,05,460.
Aggrieved, the assessee field appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not attend/complied to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) which necessitated the ld. CIT(A) to pass an order based on the facts available on record. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the us.
Before us, at ground No. 1(i), (ii) & (iii) the assessee has taken up the issue of ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). We have perused the record. The assessee has not attended before the ld. CIT(A) inspite of affording 6 opportunities. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee owing to absence of any material to rebut the findings of the AO. The assessee sought to file paper book before the Tribunal vide his letter dated 18.10.2022. We find that since the assessee failed to attend before the ld. CIT(A), in the fitness of things, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall not misuse the opportunity given by the Tribunal to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). Since, precious time of ld. CIT(A) has been frittered away by the assessee in non-complying to 6 notices issued properly, the assessee is directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to the account of “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund” (PMNRF) and submit the receipt before the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12/12/2022.