M/S PROFILE INDIA,AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, AMBALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 737/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 November 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one opportunity to present its case, subject to prompt appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee sought adjournments due to unavailability of documents and key personnel. The assessee's counsel provided an affidavit explaining the situation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The validity of upholding the rejection of books of accounts and additions made on account of GP rate and TDS on rent were also contested.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)/(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.03.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

2.

The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity and discussing the additions on merits which is against the

ITA No. 737-CHD-2019- M/s Profile India, Amabala City 2 Principles of Natural Justice and as such the order passed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.

2.

Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the rejection of books of accounts which is arbitrary and unjustified.

3.

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs.28,74,521/- made by applying the GP rate of 13.81% as against 10.51% declared by the assessee which is arbitrary and unjustified.

4.

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- made by assessing officer applying the provisions of Section 40(a)/(ia) for non deduction of TDS on rent paid which is arbitrary and unjustified.

5.

That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable.

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our

attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the same is

ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the

assessee has also submitted that though the counsel for the assessee had

sought an adjournment on the last date of hearing but the CIT(A)

rejected the adjournment request and passed the impugned order ex-

parte of the assessee.

ITA No. 737-CHD-2019- M/s Profile India, Amabala City 3 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has drawn our attention to the

chart reproduced in the order of the CIT(A) to submit that the Ld.

CIT(A) had given number of opportunities to the assessee to appear

and present its case, but every time the counsel for the assessee sought

adjournment for one reason or the other. The Ld. CIT(A) was then left

with no alternative but to pass the impugned order ex-parte of the

assessee. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has furnished an

affidavit of the assessee Shri Vivek Jolly, partner of the assessee firm to

submit that though adjournment requests were made to the CIT(A)

because the firm of the assessee had been closed down, the required

details, information and evidences were not readily available with the assessee as the key person of the firm Shri Sebastian V.M. had left the

job. That now the required documents have been obtained and that the

assessee may be given atleast one opportunity to properly present its

case before the Ld. CIT(A). Though, it has come from the record that

the assessee has sought time and again adjournments before the Ld.

CIT(A), however, considering the principle of natural justice, one

opportunity, in my view, is required to be given to the assessee to

present its case before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and

the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. It

is made clear that the assessee will promptly appear before the Ld.

CIT(A), as and when called, failing which the CIT(A) will be at liberty

to pass the order ex-parte of the assessee.

ITA No. 737-CHD-2019- M/s Profile India, Amabala City 4

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court immediately on completion of hearing.

Sd/-

(संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 07.11.2019 “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 40(a)/(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)/(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →