RICHA INDUSTRIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4005/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 October 2022AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's additions without providing any reasons, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs.11,09,35,320/- after the AO made an addition of Rs.1,89,65,000/- on account of unsecured loan under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by providing reasons for his decision. Whether the addition made under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

Hearing: 20.10.2022Pronounced: 27.10.2022

ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. :

This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad, dated 09.05.2018, relating to A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of Knitting and Processing of Readymade Garments and Steel

2 ITA.No.4005/Del./2018 Richa Industries Limited, Faridabad. Fabrications. The assessee filed it’s return of income on 30.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.9,17,08,440/-. The A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by determining the total income of assessee at Rs.11,09,35,320/- by making addition of Rs.1,89,65,000/- on account of unsecured loan received from M/s. Richa Building Systems Pvt. Ltd., under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 besides disallowing additional depreciation of Rs.2,32,084/- and compounding fee of Rs.30,000/-. Aggrieved by the said additions, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 09.05.2018 dismissed the appeal of assessee.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised various grounds, but, all relating to confirming the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and additional depreciation disallowed by the A.O.

3 ITA.No.4005/Del./2018 Richa Industries Limited, Faridabad. 4. On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application has been filed seeking for adjournment.

5.

We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the orders of the authorities below and material available on record.

6.

From the careful perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) we find that the Ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 09.05.2018 simply confirmed the additions made by the A.O. without giving any reasons for his decision. According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order.

6.1. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad, and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal of assessee in accordance with law, giving reasons for decision in the appellate order by giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4 ITA.No.4005/Del./2018 Richa Industries Limited, Faridabad. 7. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.10.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →