M/S. GAGAN POLYCOT INDIA LTC.,PALGHAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1768/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 August 2022AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to present its case on merits, considering the grounds raised regarding Section 68 and the nature of the transaction.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay. The CIT(A) had confirmed additions made by the AO under Section 68 and for cash payment, passing an ex-parte order. The assessee contended that the additions were wrongly made and sought a fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO under Section 68 and for cash payment were justified, and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha / Prayag Jha
For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B Irani – (DR)
Hearing: 31/05/2022Pronounced: 24/08/2022

ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM):

This appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai, dated 25/09/2017 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

It is observed that the assessee had filed the appeal with a delay of 477 days and has prayed that the delay may be condoned by citing the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Kattiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The assessee further stated that the company had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and had filed an affidavit reasoning the cause for delay. The Ld.AR for the assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was not wanton and deliberate and that the assessee has, on merits, a good case. 3. The Ld.DR vehemently opposed the condoning the delay of 477 days in filing the appeal. 4. Having heard both the learned representatives and perused the materials on record, we deem it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The following are the grounds raised

by the assessee: “1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.20,05,000/- without appreciating that the Ld.AO had made addition of this amount under section 68 of the IT Act though provisions of this section were not attracted to the facts on this issue.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,25,000/- without appreciating that the Ld AO had made this addition though the transaction was genuine and the amount was not claimed as deduction while computing profits and gains of business.

4. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which may be relevant to the above Grounds of Appeal in course of the appeal proceedings.”

6. The brief facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic and surgical instruments and trading in plastic products and textiles. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs.44,43,550/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section 143(3) dated 29/02/2016 was passed and addition of Rs.20,05,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and an addition of Rs.2,25,000/- on account of cash payment to M/s Parks Multi Trade Pvt Ltd was made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the additions by way of an exparte order. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

7.

The Ld.AR contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Office r and prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. 8. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not made compliances before the Ld.CIT(A) in spite of several opportunities provided. 9. Having heard both the learned representatives and perused the materials on record, we deem it fit to consider the contention of the assessee that the said additions made by the Assessing Officer does not come under the purview of the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and further contention that the alleged transaction on which the addition was made was genuine and that the assessee had not claimed the impugned amount as deduction while computing the profit and gains of business. On observing the facts of the case, we are inclined to give one last opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) shall decide the appeal on merits, after issuing notice of hearing to the assessee within 90 days from the date of this order. Thus, the appeal is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) with the above observation. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th August, 2022. Sd/- sd/-

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →