GIOVANI FASHION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 198/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 January 2022AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, the assessee's non-appearance indicated a lack of seriousness. However, to uphold natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case. The CIT(A) records showed multiple notices were sent, but the assessee did not attend.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity to represent its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 37(1),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv
Hearing: 03.01.2022Pronounced: 03.01.2022

ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Delhi dated 24.02.2020.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the additions/ disallowances made by the Ld. AO for an amount of Rs. 48,59,354/- to the returned income of the assessee.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and in-limine without considering the merits of the case. 3. The Ld, AO has erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in making a disallowance of Rs.1,93,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

4.

The Ld. AO has erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in making a notional and estimated disallowance of Rs.17,57,424/- under Section 37(1) of the Act.

5. The Ld. AO has erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in making a notional and estimated disallowance of Rs.28,90,885/- under Section 37(1) of the Act. 6. The ld.AO has erred in facts and in circumstances of the case in making a disallowance of Rs.17,745/- on the amounts paid as interest on service tax and income tax. 7. The Ld.AO has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The above grounds of appeal

s are independent and without prejudice to one another.

9. The appellant may be allowed to add/withdraw or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to represent its case by Ld.CIT(A). She submitted that in the interest of principle of natural justice, opportunity may be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld.CIT(A). She further undertook that no adjournment would be sought without a reasonable cause.

3. Per contra, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed these submissions and supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has been thoroughly negligent and no inference is called for, under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) in para 3 has provided various opportunities to the assessee, stated as under:-

3.

“Before adjudicating on the above grounds of appeal, it is pertinent to mention here that the records of the proceedings of this office as narrated below show that more than due opportunities were given to the appellant and rules of natural justice were duly adhered to. A number of opportunities were given to the appellant company but neither any Authorized Representative appeared for hearing nor any submission was made. It is pertinent to point out that the appellant has also not intimated any change in its address to this office. Details of notices sent are as follows:-

Sl.No. Date of issue Date of fixing Remarks of the case for notice/letter hearing 1. 29.08.2018 26.09.2018 Notice was sent through “Speed Post” at the address mentioned in Form No.35 i.e. 14, Navjivan VIhar, New Delhi-110017, fixing the case for 26/09/2018 and also via mail on mkdhir44@gmail.com None attended. 2. 13.12.2018 24.12.2018 Notice was sent through "Speed Post" at the address mentioned in Form No. 35 i.e. 14, Navjivan Vihar, New De,hi- 110 017., fixing the case for 24/~ 2/2018 and also via mail on mkdhir44@gmail.com None attended. 3. 02.01.2019 22.01.2019 Notice was sent through "Speed- Post" and appellant was given final opportunity, fixing the case for 22/01/2019. None attended. 4. 20.06.2019 11.07.2019 Notice was sent through "Speed Post" at the address mentioned in Form No. 35 i.e, 14, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi- 110 017., fixing the case for Page | 3

11/07/2019 and also via mail on mkdhir44@gmail.com None attended. 5. 30.07.2019 19.08.2019 Notice was sent through "Speed Post" at the address mentioned in Form No. 35 i.e. 14, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi- 110017., fixing the case for 19/08/2019 and also via mail on mkdhir44@gmail.com None attended. 6. 21.08.2019 04.09.2019 Notice was sent through "Speed Post" at the address mentioned in Form No. 35 i.e. 14, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi- 110017., fixing the case for 04/09/2019 and also via mail on mkdhir44@gmail.com None attended. 7. 01.11.2019 11.11.2019 Notice was sent through "Speed Post" at the address mentioned in Form No. 35 i.e. 14, Navjivan Vihar" New Delhi- 110017., fixing the case for 11/11/2019 and also via mail on mkdhir44@gmail.com. None attended. 8. 31.12.2019 14.01.2020 Notice was sent through “Speed Post” at the address mentioned in Form' No. 35 i.e, 14, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi- 110 017., fixing the case for 14/01/2019' and also via mail on mkdhir44@gmail.com None attended. 9. 31.01.2020 18.02.2020 Notice was sent through “Speed Post” at the address mentioned in Form' No. 35 i.e, 14, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi- 110 017., fixing the case for 18/02/2020' and also via mail on mkdhir44@gmail.com None attended.

5.

This demonstrates that the assessee was not serious in attending the proceedings. However, considering the interest of principle of natural justice, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the same to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 03rd January, 2022.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →