PEARLS TOURISM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7906/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 March 2022AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal in a summary manner without a speaking order. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case with supporting evidence before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT on multiple occasions, and hearing notices were returned unserved. The Assessing Officer made several additions under Section 68 and other sections, which were confirmed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without a speaking order, and if the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 29.03.2022Pronounced: 29.03.2022

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 02.03.2017 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the matter. On perusal of record, it is observed, on two previous occasions when the appeal was listed for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

Hence, the Bench was compelled to adjourn the appeal. It is also observed, the hearing notices issued to the assessee through speed post have returned back unserved with postal remark “left”.

In fact, though, the proceedings of the Bench dated 22nd November, 2021 and 24th January, 2022 were uploaded in the official website, still, there is no response from the assessee.

These facts clearly reveal the lack of interest of the assessee in pursuing the present appeal.

3.

In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing learned Departmental Representative and based on the materials available on record.

4.

As could be seen from the grounds raised, the basic grievance of the assessee is against ex-parte disposal of the appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

Briefly the facts are, the assessee, a resident company, is engaged in the business of tour and travels as well as authorized money exchanger. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) making a number of additions, which resulted in determination of total income at Rs.3,73,96,590/- as against returned loss of Rs.31,83,623/-. The additions made by the Assessing Officer are as under:

(i) Addition of share capital under section 68 Rs.1,13,99,960/- (ii) Addition of share premium of under section 68 Rs.56,99,980/- (iii) Addition of sundry creditors under section 68 Rs.1,39,49,731/- (iv) Addition of unsecured loans under Section 68 Rs.89,00,060/- (v) Addition of ad-hoc disallowance Rs.49,21,602/- (vi) Disallowance under Section 14A Rs.98,718/- (vii) Advance from creditors treated as unexplained Rs.1,09,457/- cash credit under section 68

6.

Contesting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, since the assessee failed to appear and represent its case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by confirming all the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

7.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. It is evident, neither before the Assessing Officer, nor before learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee appeared in course of proceedings. Thus, in absence of any supporting evidence and explanation filed by the assessee a number of additions were made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). It is also observed from discussions of learned Commissioner (Appeals), a number of opportunities were granted to the assessee, both in course of assessment proceeding as well as first appellate proceeding, however, there was no compliance from assessee’s side. This fact, to a certain extent, does reveals that the assessee somewhere lacks interest in pursuing the tax related proceeding or is not diligent. Thus, in these circumstances, we cannot blame the departmental authorities in completing the proceedings ex-parte.

However, from the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it is very much clear that he has disposed of the grounds raised by the assessee on merits in a summary manner, without specifically dealing with each of them on merits. More or less, as it appears from the order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal due to non-appearance, hence, he has not passed a speaking order. Considering the nature of additions made and the quantum, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to explain its case in the context of various additions made by the Assessing Officer with supporting evidences. For enabling the assessee to do so, we restore the issues raised in the present appeal to the file of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make proper representation before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and cooperate in finalizing the proceedings. In case of any further default by the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) will be at liberty to dispose of the appeal based on materials on record, however, he must pass a speaking order. With the aforesaid observations, grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th March, 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 →