M/S ALLYCHEM SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(4), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1054/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 April 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without clearly indicating if the delay was pointed out and without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 53-day delay without a condonation application. The assessee claimed they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard and had requested an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without affording a proper opportunity of hearing and without considering the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

Per N.K. Saini, Vice President:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.3.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-

1.

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in-limine for delay in filing of appeal by 53 days without affording proper opportunity of hearing which is arbitrary and unjustified.

2.

Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of

ITA No. 1054-C-2018 The Allychem Securites Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh 2

Rs.61,07,300/- made on account of alleged unexplained unsecured loans applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in utter disregard of the explanations rendered which is arbitrary and unjustified.

3.

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.

The main grievance of the assessee relates to the ex-parte order

passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving due and proper opportunity of

being heard to the assessee.

4.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the e-return of

income on 29.9.2012 declaring an income of ₹ 48,310/-. However, the

assessment was framed by the Assessing officer at a total income of ₹

61,55,610/- by making an addition of ₹ 61,07,000/- u/s 68 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961, on account of fresh loans introduced.

5.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)

who dismissed the appeal in limine by observing that the appeal filed by

the assessee was barred by limitation period of 53 days and no application

for condonation of delay was filed. Now the assessee is in appeal.

6.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no proper

opportunity of being heard was given by the Ld. CIT(A). It was further

submitted that when the case was fixed for hearing on 20.3.2017, the

assessee asked for adjournment, however, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the

ITA No. 1054-C-2018 The Allychem Securites Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh 3

appeal ex-parte in limine and had not adjudicated the issues on merit.

Even he has not pointed out that the appeal filed by the assessee was

belated.

7.

In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr.DR strongly supported the orders

of the authorities below and submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee

before the Ld. CIT(A) was barred by limitation and no application was

moved for condonation of delay, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in

dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

8.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused

the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the

Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte in limine. He simply stated that

no application was filed by the assessee for condonation of delay.

However, it is not clear as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) pointed out to the

assessee that appeal filed was barred by limitation. It is also noted that

the assessee asked for adjournment of the case when it was fixed for

hearing on 20.3.2017. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the

adjournment and had not cited the reasons for the same. In other words, it

is not clear as to whether the reason given for adjournment by the assessee

was genuine or not.

9.

We, therefore, considering the totality of facts deem it appropriate to

set aside this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated

afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable

ITA No. 1054-C-2018 The Allychem Securites Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh 4

opportunity to being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to

cooperate and not to seek undue or unwarranted adjournments.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 24.04.2019)

Sd/- Sd/- संजय गग� एन. के. सैनी (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K. SAINI) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member उपा�य� / Vice President Dated : 24.04.2019 “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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →