RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN,,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35(1), NEW DELHI

The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013- 14 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 26.10.2017.

The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:- 1. “The order passed by the CIT(A)-10 is incorrect and based on non- appreciation of the correct facts of the case and hence bad in law.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.NIL on 30.09.2013. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS with the reason “large deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Income Tax Act, 191 [“the Act”], Large income of unsecured loans”. In response to the statutory notices, Ld. Counsel for the assessee attended the proceedings. It is noted by the Assessing Officer [“AO”] that the assessee had given interest free advances to various parties to the tune of Rs.1,07,43,151/-. The capital of the assessee was negative. However, the assessee had claimed interest expenditure of Rs.58,53,175/- under the head “Bank Interest” and interest expenditure of Rs.2,25,704/- under the head “Interest paid to others”. Further, he noticed that the assessee had claimed income from salary amounting to Rs.23,00,000/-, loss from business amounting to Rs.43,92,022/- and loss from other sources amounting to Rs.37,39,145/-. It is noticed that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation of income whereby he declared income from other source amounting to Rs.7,526/-. The AO therefore, made addition of Rs.37,46,671/- and assessed income of the assessee at Rs.23,07,560/-.

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal against the assessment order before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) did not give adequate opportunities to the assessee for representing his case. He therefore, submitted that the assessee may be given opportunity to represent his case.

On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed these submissions and submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has given adequate opportunity to the assessee and the assessee had been negligent in not attending the appellate proceedings before Ld.CIT(A).

I have heard the contentions of Ld. Authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen from the record that on 27.09.2017, the hearing of the appeal was 25.10.2017 and it is noted by Ld.CIT(A) that a letter seeking adjournment was filed by the assessee on Dak Counter. However, Ld.CIT(A) did not grant adjournment as requested by the assessee and proceeded to decide the appeal in the absence of the assessee. Thereby, he confirmed the additions made by the assessing authorities. Looking to the facts of the present case and material placed on record before me, I am of the considered view that Ld.CIT(A) ought to have provided opportunities to the assessee for representing his case. I therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh. The assessee is directed not to seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause and co-operate in the appellate proceedings before Ld.CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.