Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 76,06,560/- for bogus purchases, which was treated as unexplained expenditure. The assessee had been non-responsive before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, and only partially responsive before the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity. This was conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Department within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would be confirmed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the addition for bogus purchases should be sustained due to the assessee's lack of representation. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the appellate authorities.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068779905(1) dated 18.09.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2019-20.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has not represented its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the grounds of appeal before us, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Ajay Battery Industries, AY: 2019-20 “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.76,06,560/- being bogus purchases (treated as unexplained expenditure) is unfair, based on no evidence and based on incongruous factual premises. 2. That the assessee crave leave to add, alter and amend any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
4. It is noticed that the assessee has also been non-responsive before the Tribunal. It is also noticed that the assessee was afforded multiple opportunities before the Assessing Officer but made part responses. This being so, and so as to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case and produce evidence, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication as the assessee has been non-responsive before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Department under challan 500 within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 25,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.