M/S. SMART SERVICES,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 354/LKW/2018Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 April 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and without deciding on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to alleged non-compliance with notices. The assessee disputed the service of these notices. The CIT(A) also sustained additions made by the AO under Section 69 and for unexplained cash balance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing adequate opportunity and deciding on merits. Whether additions under Section 69 and for unexplained cash balance were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Appellant: Shri Swarn Singh, FCA
For Respondent: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.354/LKW/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Smart Services v. ACIT-3 62-A/5, Kalyanpur Kalan Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:ACAFS7120D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Swarn Singh, FCA Respondent by: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date of hearing: 23 04 2019 Date of pronouncement: 23 04 2019

O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated 23/3/2018 for assessment year 2013-14, taking the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in passing ex parte order and sustaining the arbitrary addition/disallowance of Rs.53,13,146/- made by the Ld. A.O. 1. That in passing ex parte order the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Kanpur did not even call and examine the assessment records. 2. That the Ld. C.l.T. ( Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary additions/disallowances of Rs.46,13,146/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained additional cash balance, made by Ld. A.O.

ITA No.354/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 3

3.

That the Ld. CIT. (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned assessment order without appreciating the fact that in contravention to CBDT Circular/Instruction, the ITO-3(4), Kanpur initially selected the case for scrutiny by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 31 08 2015 and later the case was suo moto transferred to ACIT-3, Kanpur without any order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act 1961, therefore, the whole assessment is illegal, void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 4. That the impugned assessment order is illegal without jurisdiction void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. . 5. That the order of the Ld CIT (Appeals)-I, Kanpur is insupportable in law and on facts is also contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity. 6. That the addition/disallowance sustained by Ld. CIT (Appeals)- I, Kanpur in the income of the appellant company are wholly unjustified, unfounded and in any case much to high and excessive. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution, observing that the appellant has not made compliance of the statutory notices issued by the office of the ld. CIT(A) and no written submission or paper book has been filed in support of any of the grounds of appeal. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee. 3. Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. As such, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622

ITA No.354/LKW/2018 Page 3 of 3

(Del)] and incumbent on the ld CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them. 4. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/04/2019.

Sd/- Sd/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

DATED:23/04/2019 JJ:2304

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →