M/S GAGANDEEP ICE & COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD,SIRHIND vs. ITO, WARD SIRHIND HQ, MANDI GOBINDGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1079/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 June 2019AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee claimed non-receipt of hearing notices. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee contended that they did not receive the notice of hearing, leading to their absence and a violation of natural justice principles.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, and whether the addition and penalty proceedings were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.06.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

2.

The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. The impugned order is both against facts and erroneous in law.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in having dismissed the appeal exparte without having served any notice of

ITA No. 1079-Chd-2018- M/s Gagandeep Ice & Cold Storage Pvt Ltd., Sirhind 2 hearing before passing the impugned order on 11.06.2018.

3.

The impugned order is against principle of natural justice as Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in having not afforded adequate opportunity of being heard.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in having confirmed the addition of Rs. 20 lacs made by the Ld. Assessing Officer treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.

5.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in having confirmed the action of the AO in referring the matter to the Addl. CIT for consideration of imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act by holding that the assessee company received share application money of Rs.20 lacs in cash in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the I.Tax Act.

3.

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

attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the

same is an ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has

submitted that the absence of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before the

Ld. CIT(A) on the stipulated date of hearing was not intentional, rather,

was due to the fact that the assessee did not receive the notice of

hearing. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee has a fair case

on merits and that the absence of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before

the CIT(A) was not intentional.

ITA No. 1079-Chd-2018- M/s Gagandeep Ice & Cold Storage Pvt Ltd., Sirhind 3

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)

has categorically noted in the impugned order that though notices were

issued but there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the order of

the CIT(A) is an ex-parte order which the assessee wants to contest his

case on merits. The plea of the assessee is that the assessee did not

receive the notices of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A). That there was

no mention in the impugned order that for which dates the notices were

issued as the assessee did not receive any notice except that the notice

for first date of hearing for which an adjournment application was

moved.

6.

Considering the rival submissions, I am of the view, that the

interest of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an

opportunity to contest the appeal on merits. The assessee can be

burdened with some costs. I, accordingly set aside the order of CIT(A)

and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh

subject to deposit of costs Rs. 2,500/- in the Prime Minister’s Relief

Fund.

6.

The receipt of the deposit of the said amount in Prime Minister’s

Relief Fund will be shown to the Ld. CIT(A) on the first date of hearing

ITA No. 1079-Chd-2018- M/s Gagandeep Ice & Cold Storage Pvt Ltd., Sirhind 4 in the set aside proceedings. Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case and to decide

the same by way of speaking order in accordance with law.

In the result, 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 : 06. 06.2019 “आर.के.”

आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यआ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →