Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 599/JP/2018
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 599/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 cuke M/s Anil Industries, D.C.I.T., Vs. F-68, RIICO Industrial Area, Kishangarh Circle-1, Road, Khairthal, Alwar. Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACFA 1524 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/08/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 09/08/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated
27/02/2018 of ld. CIT(A), Alwar for the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has
raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to assessee and service of notice. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of A.O. in rejecting the books of account by applying the provision of Section 145(3) of the Act and thereby confirming lump sum trading addition of Rs. 3.00 lacs. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,93,722/- out of various expenses.
ITA 599/JP/2018_ 2 Anil Industries Vs DCIT
The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal.
The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.”
The assessee is a partnership firm and files its return of income on
24/9/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 20,95,500/-. In the scrutiny
assessment, the Assessing Officer rejected books of account U/s 145(3) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and made trading addition of
Rs. 3.00 lacs as well as disallowed certain expenditure of Rs. 1,93,722/-.
Thus, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment made total
addition of Rs. 4,93,722/-.
The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before
the ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed ex parte.
We have heard the ld AR as well as the ld DR and considered the
relevant material on record. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that
the ld. CIT(A) issued notice dated 06/9/2017 but due to incorrect address,
the same was not delivered to the assessee. Again the ld. CIT(A) issued
notice dated 12/10/2017 at the same incorrect address and therefore, it was
not delivered to the assessee. The last notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) dated
13/2/2018 was addressed to the authorized representative of the assessee
at his Alwar address for the next date of hearing fixed on 20/2/2018 hut due
to the reason that the said notice was delivered to the authorized
ITA 599/JP/2018_ 3 Anil Industries Vs DCIT
representative only on 28/2/22018 was dispatched on 26/2/2018 and was
delivered on 28/2/2018, the authorized representative of the assessee could
not attend the hearing on 28/2/2018. Thus, due to this reason the assessee
could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and the ex parte order was passed
on 27/2/2018 prior to the last notice received by the authorized
representative of the assessee. Hence, the ld AR has pleaded that the
assessee may be given one more opportunity of hearing and present its
case before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld DR has vehemently opposed to the appeal
of the assessee and submitted that despite sufficient opportunities given by
the ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and hence
the ld. CIT(A) was having no option but to pass ex parte order. He has
relied upon the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant
material on record. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of
the assessee ex parte in summary manner as under:
“3.1 In this case, notices U/s 250 was issued to the appellant on several occasions fixing the hearing on 19/09/2017, 27/10/2017 and 20/02/2018. No one attended. Therefore, I am constrained to decide the appeal on the basis of evidences on record.
3.2 I have further noted that no statement of facts was filed alongwith Form No. 35.
ITA 599/JP/2018_ 4 Anil Industries Vs DCIT
3.3 I absence of any submissions by the appellant in support of its claims, I have relied upon the facts mentioned in the assessment order. After considering the same, I see no reason to interfere with the assessment order passed by the A.O.. Accordingly, the appellant’s grounds of appeal are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
Thus, it is manifest from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the appeal was
fixed for hearing on three occasions but none had appeared or attended the
proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). As pointed out by the ld AR of the
assessee that first two notices were issued and sent on incorrect address
and therefore, the same were not received by the assessee and the last
notice was dispatched only on 26/2/2018 which was after date of hearing on
20/2/2018 and the said notice was received by the authorized
representative of the assessee on 28/2/2018 subsequent to the impugned
order was passed by the ld. CIT(A). In these facts and explanation as put
forth by the ld AR of the assessee, we find that the assessee was not given
a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. We further note that the
assessee after receiving the notice by the authorized representative on
28/2/2018 filed a letter dated 4/4/2018 in the office of ld. CIT(A) as per
acknowledgement dated 10/4/2018. However, the impugned order was
already passed by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, no cognizance was taken of the
said letter filed by the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case
ITA 599/JP/2018_ 5 Anil Industries Vs DCIT and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the
assessee be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld.
CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the matter to the record of the ld. CIT(A)
for granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then
decide the same afresh as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/08/2018.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼foØe flag ;kno½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 09th August, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Anil Industries, Alwar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Alwar. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 599/JP/2018) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत