KKM ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 14(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 920/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 March 2022AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had failed to pass a speaking order. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte for want of prosecution. The assessee had challenged additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investment and commission paid for accommodation entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without deciding on merits, and whether the order passed was a speaking order as required by law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

Hearing: 31.03.2022

Date of hearing: 31.03.2022 Date of order : 31.03.2022

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.08.2019 of the learned CIT(A)-5, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- sustained by ld. CIT(A) on account of unexplained investment u/s. 68 and Rs. 50,000/- on account of commission paid at the rate of 2.5% on accommodation entries of Rs.20,00,000/-obtained by the assessee.

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of appeal. The notice sent by the Registry through RPAD was returned back with the postal remark that the firm is not traced out. The assessee has also not taken any steps to intimate change of address, if any.

Therefore, I deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.

4.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring income of Rs.7,84,530/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information received by Assessing Officer that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries of Rs.20,00,000/- from one of the entry providers, namely Euphoria Pvt. Ltd., the case of the assessee was reopened after recording the reasons and notice u/s. 148 was issued, in compliance to which no return was filed. Various notices and show cause notices were issued to the assessee but almost all the notices were returned back with the postal remark “no such firm”. Finding no response/compliance on behalf of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, determining total income at Rs.28,34,530/- by making addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s. 68 and Rs. 50,000/- being 2.5% commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries of Rs.20 lacs. In appeal filed by assessee also, a number of opportunities were granted to the assessee, but the assessee failed to respond. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by ex parte order for want of prosecution and any compliance or written submissions from the side of assessee. Aggrieved by such order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. However, he has not decided the appeal on merits as per provisions of section 250(6), according to which the order of CIT(A) shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, ld. CIT(A) has not done so. Therefore, considering the totality of facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to grant one more final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and to decide the appeal on the basis of facts and law by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in hearing of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments on one pretext or the other, failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass an order as per law.

The grounds raised by the assessee are, accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →