Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 23.03.2016 framed u/s. 263 of the Act by the Pr. CIT, Rohtak for A.Y. 2011-12.
The grievance of the assessee read as under :-
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. A perusal of our record show that this appeal was first listed on 04.09.2019 on which date nobody appeared thereafter on 23.02.2021, 30.09.2021, 16.12.2021, 28.02.2022, 05.04.2022 in all these dates no one appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of the notices. The impugned assessment year is A.Y.2011-12 and the impugned order is framed u/s. 263 of the Act. This being an old matter we decided to proceed exparte.
The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an authorized dealer of JCB, Ashok Leyland, Eicher Tractor.
Return for the year under consideration was selected for scrutiny under “CASS” and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee.
During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to file the comparative chart of Sales, Gross Profit, Net Profit, G.P. Ratio and Net Profit Ratio of the current year and on perusal of the details the AO made certain additions and framed order u/s. 143 (3) of the Act on 25.10.2013.
Assuming the power conferred upon him by the provision of section 263 of the Act the Pr. CIT, Rohtak served notice upon the assessee asking the assessee to show cause why the Assessment Order dated 25.10.2013 framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act be not treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as no enquiry was made by the AO in respect of interest free advances of Rs. 1.33 crores which included certain advances for purchase of property on which interest was not capitalized.
Assessee filed reply to the show cause notice which was duly considered by the Pr. CIT. However, the Pr. CIT was of the firm belief that since no enquiry was made by the AO, he deem it fit to set aside the Assessment order dated 25.10.2013 with a direction to the AO to reframe the same after making proper enquiry in respect of the advances given by the assessee holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
On the aforementioned facts and on finding that the AO infact did not make any enquiry in respect of interest free advances has certainly made the Assessment order dated 25.10.2013 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Pr. CIT. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly dismissed.
Decision announced in the open court on 31.05.2022.