WELLKNOWN JEWELLERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-27(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7821/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 March 2022AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was disposed of ex parte, leading to the confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the notice of hearing was not sent to the correct address, preventing their participation.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. BRR KUMARR

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.03.2022Pronounced: 10.03.2022

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY: JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 31.08.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi for assessment year 2014-15.

2.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record.

The basic grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of the appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

3.

Briefly, the facts are that the assessee is a resident company. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 10.09.2014, declaring income of Rs.3,66,320. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act,1961 vide order dated 30.12.2011, determining the total income at Rs.5,16,98,620. The enhancement in the income determined was due to couple of additions made under Section 68 of the Act aggregating to Rs.5,12,82,000. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). In an ex parte order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee while confirming the additions made by the assessing officer. Drawing our attention to Column 13 of appeal memo in Form 35, filed before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice of hearing was not sent to the proper address.

Therefore, the assessee was unable to attend on the date of hearing.

Thus, learned counsel submitted, the issues may be restored back to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication.

4.

Learned Departmental Representative did not express any serious objection to assessee’s request for restoring the issues to learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

Having considered rival submissions, we find that the substantive addition made by the assessing officer is towards unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Unfortunately, due to ex parte disposal of the appeal, the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to properly represent its case before learned Commissioner (Appeals) by furnishing supporting evidence to explain the credits. Considering the above, we are of the view that assessee deserves a fair opportunity to represent its case before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to him for de novo adjudication after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear learned Commissioner (Appeals) may issue notice of hearing at the address provided at Column 13 of Form 35 filed before him. Assessee is also directed to co-operate in finalization of the proceedings. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal 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 →