THE DANTOL DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

The appeal is time-barred by 62 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order ex-parte, without ensuring that a real and meaningful opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant, especially considering the peculiar circumstances and genuine limitations faced by the appellant in effectively participating in the proceedings.

0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹50,91,573/- on account of alleged inflation of sales treated as unexplained credit, without adjudicating the appeal on merits and without considering the appellant's inability to respond to the hearing notices due to genuine constraints.

0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the addition of ₹16,78,871/- on account of investments and debtors shown in the Balance Sheet treating the same as unexplained cash credit without adjudicating the appeal on merits and without considering the appellant's inability to respond to the hearing notices due to genuine constraints.

0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ex-parte in violation of the mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal through a reasoned order on each ground of appeal, irrespective of the appellant's absence or non-compliance.

0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that non-appearance of the appellant does not empower the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss or decide appeal on merits without real hearing.

0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A as well section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under reporting and/or mis-reporting of income.

0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Dantol Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20

0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated at bar that only Ground Nos.1 to 3 are relevant and the other grounds are general in nature and no specific adjudication is required on the Ground Nos.4 to 8. Therefore, Ground Nos.4 to 8 are dismissed as not pressed.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vide Ground No.1 has contested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. However, the Ld. Counsel has submitted that he is ready to argue the appeal on merits before this Tribunal. Therefore, ground No.1 is also dismissed as not pressed.

At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised a legal ground relating to the validity of the reopening of the assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessment, in this case, was reopened on account of certain cash transactions, i.e. certain cash deposits and cash withdrawals in the bank account of the assessee, noting that the assessee has not filed any return of income for the year under consideration and whereas, the additions have been made on account of inflated purchases and inflated sales and unexplained investment & unexplained debtors.

After going through the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Asst. Year : 2019-20

Now coming to the Ground Nos.2 & 3 taken by the assessee, whereby, the assessee has contested the addition of Rs.50,91,573/- made by the AO on account of inflated sales and further the addition of Rs.16,78,871/- made on account of unexplained investments and debtors. We note that the impugned assessment order relating to the aforesaid two issues is not a speaking order. Asst. Year : 2019-20

In view of this, both the issues are restored to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh after giving proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.