Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return declaring Nil income and a loss, later revised. The case was selected for scrutiny. A notice was issued to reconcile receipts from 26AS and the P&L account. The assessee failed to provide details, leading to an addition by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the addition.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment, allowing one more opportunity to present the case with supporting evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for re-assessment due to non-compliance and lack of substantiation, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(2), 254, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
(Assessment Year: 2011-12) Absotherm Services Private Limited DCIT Circle-1, Thane B/1, Tara Niwas, Near Brahman Vs. English School, Mumbai – 400602. PAN/GIR No. AAGCA0631A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. B. N. Rao : DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR) Respondent by : 16.04.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12.
2. It is observed that this appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 459 days beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed an application for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to hold that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay and we therefore condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
(A.Y. 2011-12) Absotherm Services Pvt. Ltd. “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,62,74,516 made by the Assessing Officer 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity to the Appellant”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and had filed its return of income dated 30.11.2011, declaring total income at Rs. Nil and showing current year loss of Rs. 2,72,67,599/- and had subsequently revised its return of income dated 29.09.2012, declaring total loss of Rs. 1,48,00,900/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) was passed on 19.03.2014. Notice u/s. 143(2) r.w.s. 254 of the Act was issued on 28.08.2019, requesting the assessee to furnish the details to reconcile the receipts of Rs. 18,32,75,066/- as per 26AS and receipts of Rs. 6,70,00,550/- as per P & L account in F.Y. 2010-12. As the assessee failed to furnish the complete details of reconciling the receipts as per 26AS and receipts as per P & L account inspite of several opportunities, the ld. AO treated the difference of the above receipts i.e., Rs. 11,62,74,516/- as income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. AO had passed the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 254 of the Act dated 09.12.2019, declaring total income at Rs. 10,34,51,480/- after making addition of Rs. 11,62,74,516/-.
Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide an ex parte order dated 29.09.2023, upheld the addition made by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has been non-compliant and has failed to substantiate its claim.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on the above-mentioned grounds.
(A.Y. 2011-12) Absotherm Services Pvt. Ltd.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that this is the second round of proceedings, where the assessee has preferred this present appeal challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is observed that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the proceeding before the first appellate authority and had failed to furnish any explanation along with any supporting documentary evidence in support of its claim.
The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee has got a good case on the merits and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities.
The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the revenue on the other hand vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the lower authorities for the reason that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A) but has not availed of the same. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.