Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) for AY 2013-14 concerning alleged accommodation entries, as the assessee had not represented its case before the CIT(A). An earlier hearing at the Tribunal had noted that the issue would be restored, but no order was passed. The assessee sought an adjournment which was rejected.
Held
The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the issues relating to alleged accommodation entries should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) must grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, allow production of directors and evidence, and may draw adverse inferences if the assessee fails to cooperate.
Key Issues
The key issue was whether the matter concerning alleged accommodation entries, which resulted in an ex-parte order from the CIT(A), should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
(Assessment Year: 2013-14) Saviour Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1) 6, Judges Court Road, Kolkata, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. PIN-700027, West Bengal Kolkata-700027, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAMCS3660D Assessee by : Shri Nisheeth Doshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Raja Sengupta, DR Date of hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070298542(1) dated 12.11.2024 for the AY 2013-14.
Shri Nisheeth Doshi appeared on behalf of the assessee and Raja Sengupta appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The assessee has sought adjournment. As the issues in the appeal is simple and the reasons given is not substantiated, the adjournment application is rejected and the appeal disposed off.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal is originally been heard earlier on 13.05.2025 and it was noted that the issue in the appeal would be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A)/ Assessing Officer.
A perusal of the order sheet entries of 13.05.2025 shows that admittedly the appeal was heard but the order was not passed and since
In reply, the ld. CIT DR submitted that the assessee has produced all the details before the ld. AO but has failed to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT (A). It was the submission that no objection to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for re-adjudication.
We have considered the rival submission. Perusal of the facts in the present case shows that this is a case of alleged accommodation entries. Further perusal of the facts shows that before the ld. CIT (A) the assessee has not represented his case. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for adjudication on merits after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee should be granted adequate opportunity to produce its directors as also the directors of the various persons who have given the assessee the money so the assessee can proof the transactions. In the event the assessee does file any additional evidence the same should be given to the AO for remand. Should the assessee not co-operate in the set aside proceedings, liberty is granted to the ld. CIT (A) to draw adverse interference.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2025.