UNI FASHION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-27(1), NEW DELHI

The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :

Assessee is a company who had not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 as required under Section 139(1) of the Act. AO on the basis of information received from AIR/CIB noted that assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.18,69,473/- in its book account and as per the 26AS statement, it had received income of Rs.99,59,033/- subject to deduction of TDS u/s 194C, 194I & 194H from different persons. He was thus of the view that assessee had not disclosed total income of Rs.1,18,81,506/- by not furnishing the return of income. AO accordingly issued notice on 30.03.2017 for reopening the assessment. AO noted that in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, assessee filed the return of income on 06.12.2017 declaring Nil income. Thereafter assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 29.12.2017 and the total income was determined at Rs.36,70,620/-.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 22.05.2019 in Appeal No. 71/18-19/1099 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “That order passed by Ld CIT (A) dated 22/05/2019 for Assessment Year 2010-11 is bad in law and has been passed in haste. The Ld. CIT (A) has gone into the past procedure not relevant, which was not subject matter of the appeal. The Ld. CIT (A) has not considered the assessee’s appeal ground-wise and has not justified, in not considering the additional evidences submitted by the assessee (not even sent for remand report to the Ld. AO for his comments) merely on the alleged ground that assessee not filed its ITR u/s 139(1) in the past and allegedly has not co-operated before the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.

Before me, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that though various grounds have been raised by assessee but the sole controversy is that the CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidences furnished before him and not decided the issue on merits.

Before me, Learned AR submitted that the assessee could not furnish the details called for by the authorities as there was dispute between the promoters and collaborators and the premises were seized by Pollution Control Board in the year 2011 and therefore assessee did not receive the notices and could not furnish the information called for by the AO. In support of the contention the premises was seized, he pointed to the copy of the letter of Haryana Pollution Control Board placed at Page 30 to 39 of the paper book. He therefore submitted that in such a situation, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not furnishing the required information before the AO and the information that was required were furnished before the CIT(A) but he has rejected the application u/s 46A of the I.T. Rules. He therefore submitted that in the interest of justice, assessee may be given one more opportunity of furnishing the required details and further the assessee undertakes to furnish all the required details called for by the authorities for disposing of the matter.

Learned DR did not controvert the submission made by Learned AR but however supported the order of CIT(A).

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The perusal of the CIT(A) order reveals that before the CIT(A) assessee had prayed for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules but the same was rejected by the CIT(A). Before me, it is the submissions of the assessee that there was dispute among the promoters and the unit of the assessee was sealed by Pollution Control Board since 2011 and in such a situation, the assessee could not furnish the necessary details before the AO. The aforesaid contentions of assessee has not been controverted by Revenue. In such a situation, I am of the view that assessee was prevented from furnishing the required details before the authorities. It is a settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no party should be condemned unheard. Considering the totality of the facts, I am of the view that the additional evidences filed before the CIT(A) be taken on record and the same should be considered by CIT(A). I therefore direct the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidences filed by the assessee and thereafter considering the submissions of the assessee decide the issue afresh on merits by a speaking order. In view of the aforesaid facts, I set aside the order of CIT(A) dated 22.05.2019 and restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after considering the submissions of assessee and in accordance with law. Needless to state that CIT(A) shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In view of my decision to restore the issue back to CIT(A), I am not adjudicating on merits the other grounds raised by assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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