MAGGOT IMPEX PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5617/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 November 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be dismissed without deciding on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed without a decision on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance. The original assessment order made significant additions on account of share capital, borrowings, and unexplained credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits. Whether the additions made by the AO under Section 68 and Section 14A were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH : “E” NEW DELHI ]

Before: DR. B. R. R. KUMAR & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 28.11.2022Pronounced: 30.11.2022

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 16/01/2017 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Delhi [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. A.O. had erred on the facts and in law in holding that the share capital plus premium amounting to Rs.11,94,76,000/- received during the year from corporate entities in unexplained

Maggot Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961.

2.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in holding that the short term capital borrowing amounting to Rs.90,000/- received during the year as unexplained credit within the meaning of section 68 of The Act.

3. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on the facts in treating an amount of Rs.87,00,989/- as unexplained credit in the bank account of the appellant.

4. The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on the facts in making an addition of Rs.2,61,943/- holding that the appellant has no business activity.

5.

The Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on the facts in invoking section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules,1962 to make a disallowance of Rs.50,000/- without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellant and without appreciating categorical ruling of higher judicial authorities on this issue.

6.

The Ld. A.O. wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act.

7. The Ld. A.O. wrongly charged interest U/s 234B,234C and 234D of the Act.”

Maggot Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO

3.

None appeared for the assessee. The Chartered Accountant who is on record for the Assessee has filed the letters stating that ‘his service has been withdrawn’ by the Assessee. The assessee has neither made alternative arrangement to represent him before Tribunal nor attended personally for hearing. By considering the issue involved in the present appeal, we inclined to hear the Ld. DR and disposed the present appeal after verify the material on records.

4.

The return declaring income of Rs. 19,880/- was filed by the assessee, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) by making addition of Rs. 11,94,76,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital and share premium, an amount of Rs. 90,000/- u/s 68 on account of short term borrowing, an amount of Rs. 87,00,989/- was made on account of unexplained credits, an amount of Rs. 2,61,943/- made on account of business expenses and sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. The income of the assessee has been computed at Rs. 12,85,98,812/- as against the declared income at Rs. 19,880/- and passed assessment order on 27/03/2015.

5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27/03/2015, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). After filing the appeal before the CIT(A), neither the assessee nor any representative of the assessee have appeared before the CIT (A). The Ld.CIT(A) by applying the ratio laid down in the case of Multiplan Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (ITAT Delhi) dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merit.

6. It is well settled law that the appeal before the CIT(A) cannot be dismissed without deciding the appeal on merit. In view of the same, we inclined to party allow the present appeal by restoring the issue involved in the present appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. Needless

Maggot Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO to say, the Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on : 30.11.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →