VINPACK (INDIA) PVT LTD,KENGERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law is not deciding the appeal on merits.

That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred up holding the additions of Rs.67,94,853 being the difference between Turnover as per books and gross receipts appearing in 26AS

That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred up holding the additions of Rs. 30,60,726 being the amount payable to a Company stuck off by ROC.

That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in up holding the additions of Rs.10,33,372 being the interest attributable to capital work in progress.

That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in up holding the addition of Rs.3,45,147 to a related party Company whose name stuck off by ROC.

That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in up holding the addition of Rs.3,47,566 provision for Gratuity.

That the learned CIT(Appeal) ought to have given fair opportunity to the applanate to submit the evidence and written submission before the appellate order is made and having failed to so the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

That the applicant carve leave to add, alter delete or modify any ground of appeal.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 and thereafter their case was selected for complete scrutiny and notices were issued u/s. 143(3) and 142(1) of the act for which the assessee uploaded all the details and the assessment was completed.

As against the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed that the assessment made by the AO

As against the said ex-parte order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that in view of the long gap of 4 years, the notices sent through the email was not brought to the notice of the Director and therefore the assessee was not able to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed to grant one more opportunity.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

We have seen from the proceedings of the AO, the assessee had explained the case in detail but unfortunately, the AO not satisfied with the submission, made assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. We are also satisfied with the submission made by the Assessee that the appeal was filed during the year 2020 and therefore the notices sent to the accounts department were not viewed by them properly and therefore the assessee was not able to respond to the said notices. We have also considered the undertaking given by the Ld.AR that if the Ld CIT has posted the appeal for hearing during the first week of March, 2025, the assessee will appear on the said date of hearing and dispose the appeal. Recording the said submission made by the Ld.AR, we are setting aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

Respondent 3. CIT

DR, ITAT, Bangalore

Guard file

CIT(A)