Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 26.11.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11.
Grounds of appeal read as under:
“1. That The Ld. CIT (A)-12 New Delhi has erred in law & on facts in not affording any opportunity at all to the appellant and decided the Asseesee Appeal ex- parte against the principal of natural justice and Hence his order is non-est in law.
2. That the LD CIT (A)-12, New Delhi has erred in law on facts and passed the order without even serving one Notice of hearing to Assessee the order is against the basic principles of Natural Justice.
That the Ld CIT(A) has not served even his order on Assessee. It was just checking on status of appeal by Assessee’s counsel when it was informed to us that order of the Ld. CIT(A) has since passed and accordingly it was downloaded and appeal is filed herewith before this Hon’ble ITAT. The acts of the Ld. CIT-(A) is wholly arbitrary and purely based on the suspicion and conjecture and his order is liable to be quashed/Annulled.
That the Ld CIT(A) has not dealt with Assessee’s ground of appeal of Re-opening of case u/s 147/148 of I.T. Act. The entire order is passed in total disregard of all principals of Nature Justice, Jurisprudence and non application of Judicious mind and purely based on illegality coupled with arbitrariness suspicion and conjectures.
5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and an facts while upholding the reopening of case u/s 148 of I.T. Act. The Notice u/s 147/148 of I.T. Act was never served on the Assessee and It is time barred, Moreover Reasons of Re-opening were also vague and without any basics and even order upheld u/s 143(3)/148 Act for upholding Re-opening is also barred by time.
6. That The Ld CIT (A) New Delhi has erred in law & on facts in upholding the addition in making addition of Rs 2,28,50,000/- to the income of Assessee on account of alleged unexplained increase in capital, disregarding even the material placed on record before the Ld. A.O. during the Assessment proceedings therefore the entire addition is bad in law and is liable to be deleted.
7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts while upholding an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained unsecured loans received during the year from confirmed sources, therefore the addition is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. Moreover That the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the act of The Ld AO who has ignored/rejected even the confirmation filed from the lenders without examining the same and the Ld CIT(A) also did not the appreciate even the material on record.
8. That the Ld. CIT has erred in law & on facts while upholding an gross estimated addition of Rs. 1,77,961/-, on account of notional deemed interest on advances @ 12% PA for period of some days, in his ex-parte order Therefore upholding the addition is arbitrary and purely based on suspicion and conjectures. The material/confirmation placed on record from respective party was ignored/rejected without any cogent reasons or even acknowledging.
9. That the Ld. CIT has erred in law & on facts while upholding an gross estimated addition of Rs. 3,57,750/- on account of notional Commission paid @ 1.50% on 2,38,50,000/-, purely on his presumptions in ex-parte order therefore the addition is bad in law is liable to be deleted.
That your appellant Crave leave to add, amend all or any of above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that in the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 147 of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer made various additions and the total income assessed came to Rs.2,43,85,711/-.
4. Against this order assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) noted that several notices were sent to the assessee and no compliance was made. The ld. CIT(A) did not specify the mode by which the notices were sent. Thereafter on the various issues he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by referring to Assessing Officer’s observation upon them.
5. Against this order, the assessee filed appeal before us. Several notices have been sent but none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we are deciding the issue by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the records. The notices sent has also returned unserved. Among the various grounds raised
in the grounds of appeal before us, one ground is that proper opportunity has not been given by the ld. CIT(A). Upon going through the ld. CIT(A) order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that notices were sent but the assessee did not comply. However, the assessee has disputed the same and has pleaded that not even one notice has been served upon the assessee. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice will be served if the issue is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the issue is remitted to the file of the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee opportunity of being heard.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/11/2022.