PASWARA CHEMICALS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, U.P

PDF · subscribers
ITA 154/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 July 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that a reasonable cause existed for the assessee's non-attendance. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal of the appeal after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to alleged non-attendance. The assessee claimed that the email notice for hearing went into their spam folder, leading to inadvertent non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Whether the addition made under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, CA, Shri Suraj Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Toufel Tahir, Sr.D.R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 23.12.2021 arising from the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee reads as under:

1.

“That under the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in law in not providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, thus, grossly violated the principles of natural justice.

2. That under the facts and circumstances, addition of Rs.4 Cr. u/s.68 of the I.T. Act is absolutely illegal and unjustified in law as well as on merits, more so, this amount never stood credited physically on account of Chq. of Rs.4 Cr. being dishonoured, therefore reversed in the books also.

3.

That under the facts and circumstances the Ld. A.O. erred in law as well as on merits in making addition under sec 68 for following Unsecured Loans:-

1,15,00,000/- Prasandi Skills Tech Pvt. Ltd. 2,10,00,000/- Emm Vee Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. 3,25,00,000/- Total 3.1 That in the absence of providing the cross examination of Shri Vijay Pal Yadav Director of these companies whose statement has been recorded on the back of the assessee and has been adversely used no cognize thereof can be taken.

That under the facts and circumstances no interest u/s.234A/B/C/D should be charged. Without prejudice, in any case, the calculations are grossly erroneous and excessive.”

3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee inter alia pointed out that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte owing to alleged non-attendance from the assessee. With reference to paragraph 5 of the first appellate order, it was submitted that the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte on the ground that several notices of hearing served on the registered e-mail id of the counsel of the assessee, ‘ssguptaand co@yahoo.co.in’ remained unattended and unresponded. To address this allegation, the ld. counsel filed an affidavit dated 19.07.2022 by the assessee and in turn relied upon the communication from S.S. Gupta & Co., Chartered Accountant dated 19th July, 2022. It was pointed out that the e-mail communication fixing the appeal unfortunately delivered into ‘spam folder’ and therefore inadvertently remained unnoticed resulting in non compliance and consequent ex-parte disposal.

4.

In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we find that reasonable cause exists for non attendance of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). In the absence of any deliberate omission to attend the proceedings and also having regard to the contention that a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to non attendance, we approach the issue in a rational common sense pragmatic manner and agree to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we do not propose to deal with the issue on merits.

5.

In the totality of the circumstances, we consider it just and expedient to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) in the larger interest of justice with a view to enable the assessee to avail proper opportunity for disposal of appeal by the CIT(A) on various points. Needless to say, the assessee shall extend full co- operation to the CIT(A) without any demur, failing which, the CIT(A) shall at liberty to complete the appellate proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) appealed against, is set aside and all the issues raised in the impugned appeal are restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 26/07/2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →