Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Private Limited Company, declared a loss for AY 2013-14. The case was selected for reassessment based on information that the assessee received an advance of Rs. 50.00 lakh from M/s. Sarvottam Finvest Ltd. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee primarily prayed for an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) to furnish details explaining the nature and source of the alleged sum. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to furnish details regarding the cash credit and genuineness of the transaction.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 68, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 25.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi emanating out of Assessment order dated 22.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Though the assessee has raised as many as 12 grounds of appeal but through Ground No.2 it has been raised that ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without giving opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of “Audi Alteram Partem”.
3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. Assessing Officer erred in invoking section 68 of the Act for the sum of Rs.50.00 lakh received from M/s. Sarvottam Finvest Ltd. He submitted that details shall be filed before ld.CIT(A) if an opportunity is granted by remitting the issues raised in the instant appeal.
4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and declared loss of Rs.7,50,302/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 29.09.2013. Case of the assessee selected for reassessment proceedings on the basis of information in the possession of the Department that assessee has received an advance of Rs.50.00 lakh from alleged paper entity namely M/s. Sarvottam Finvest Ltd. After serving of valid statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act assessee failed to furnish the requisite details before ld. Assessing Officer as a result of which addition u/s.68 of the Act at Rs.50.,00 lakh was made and income assessed at Rs.42,49,698/-. Assessee challenged the addition before ld.CIT(A) but could not succeed.
5. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has only prayed that sufficient opportunity was not granted by ld.CIT(A) to furnish the details which were required to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum. In other words, assessee wanted to furnish evidence to prove the Identity and Creditworthiness of the cash creditor and genuineness of the transaction so that section 68 of the Act is not invoked. Considering the prayer of the assessee and in the larger interest of justice being fair to both the parties, I deem it proper to provide one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee and if required may call for a remand report from the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. After obtaining the comments from the assessee, then ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issue in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 03.11.2025.