Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
The Assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 09/10/2018 passed u/s.250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
Texraj Realty P. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2015-16 - 2 - 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The learned OT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex- parte without considering the written submission dated 26/09/2018 filed in Tapal on 03/10/2018, which is before the date of order i.e. 09/10/2018. In view of the facts that written submission has already been filed in Tapal, the learned CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal in the light of the said written submission and therefore, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is invalid and as a result various additions /disallowances confirmed by him are required to be deleted.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,92,889/- on account of proportionate disallowance of land vacating compensation charges. In view of the facts, submissions and evidences filed, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 2,00,92,889/-.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the request of the appellant to give appropriate direction to AO for adjusting the opening value of WIP of Rs. 20,67,990/- in the subsequent assessment year while observing that there is no order on the issue and the ground of appeal
is not maintainable since the issue is not emanating from the assessment order. In view of the fact that adjustment of opening value of WIP to the subsequent assessment year is as per the law of accounting, the learned CIT(A) ought to have admitted / accepted the issue being a legal issue and ought to have given appropriate direction to the AO since addition of Rs. 20,67,990 has been made for the assessment year under appeal on account of excess claim of cost of land sold.
4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of employees benefit expenses of Rs. 20,56,412/-. In view of the facts and submissions filed, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the impugned disallowance of Rs. 20,56,412/-.
5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of cost of material consumed amounting to Rs. 7,00,45,639/-. In view of the facts, submissions and evidences filed, the learned C1T(A) ought to have deleted the impugned disallowance of Rs. 7,00,45,639/-.
Texraj Realty P. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2015-16 - 3 - 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 05/10/2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,30,24,380/-. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was framed vide order dated 18/12/2017 thereby the Assessing Officer (‘AO' in short) assessed the total income of Rs.10,72,87,310/- and made disallowance of land vacation compensation of Rs.2,00,92,889/-, disallowance of excess cost of Land of Rs.20,67,990/-, disallowance of employee benefit expenses of Rs.20,56,412/- and disallowance of purchases of Rs.7,00,45,639/-. The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order, preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is further in appeal before us.
The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the claim of the assessee was bonafide. He further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the written submission dated 26/09/2018 filed in Tapal on 03/10/2018, which is before the date of CIT(A)’s order, i.e.09/10/2018. In view of the facts that written submission has already been filed in Tapal, the Ld.CIT(A)
Texraj Realty P. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2015-16 - 4 - ought to have decided the appeal in the light of the said written submission and, therefore, the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is invalid and as a result various additions/disallowances confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) are required to be deleted.
On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR opposed the submissions of the ld.counsel for the assessee and submitted that the authorities below have rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee was not entitled for the claim, as the purchases made by the assessee are bogus in nature.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte to the assessee. It is contended that the submissions of the assessee were not considered nor any remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and the material placed before us, the impugned order is set aside in the interest of principle of natural justice and the grounds are restored to the ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh. The Ld.CIT(A) would seek a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of the material placed before him. The assessee would not seek unnecessary adjournments and co-operate in the appellate
Texraj Realty P. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2015-16 - 5 - proceedings. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.