Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income. The assessment was completed by making additions under Section 68 and Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, and disallowing interest expenses. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, stating that the assessee did not respond to notices and failed to file documents.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without properly considering the detailed submissions and evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's detailed submissions and evidence, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 68, 143(3), 40(a)(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2022-23 K. D. Choudhari, Vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune. Office No.36, 37, 38, Krushi Udog Bhavan, Gultekdi, Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Market Yard, Pune- 411037. PAN : AANFK0084B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2022-23.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing an order u/s 250 dated 19/12/2024, by observing that appellant has not responded to notices issued in appellate proceedings, thereby completely ignoring the detailed submissions made in response to last three notices, that to on or before due date mentioned, such casual approach in the appellate proceeding is unacceptable because, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered these detailed replies and should have decided the appeal on merit. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal
, following grounds are also taken on merit,
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs.3,58,38,285 under section 68 cash credit being entire unsecured loan accepted during the year by disregarding explanation and information submitted by the appellant the action of Learned Assessing Officer is illegal and arbitrary the entire addition deserves to be deleted
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,50,69,673/- under section 68 cash credit being entire outstanding balance of sundry creditors without making any further verification entire additions needs to be deleted.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.15,41,756 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering that under salary head TDS in respect of Rs 51,39.188 is not deducted. Your appellant claims that the action is incorrect and no disallowance is warranted.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,00,370 out of total interest expenses of Rs. 1,29,39,505 for the reason of want of details. It is your appellants claim that such details are available and entire allowance needs to be deleted. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of commission agent dealing in agricultural produce. The assessee has filed return of income on 30.09.2022 declaring total income of Rs.1,34,92,380/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and after considering the submissions of 143(3) of the IT Act, by determining taxable income of Rs.7,61,42,464/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.1,34,92,380/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.3,58,38,285/- and of Rs.2,50,69,673/- u/s 68 of the IT Act and addition of Rs.15,41,756/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act and also addition of Rs.2,00,370/- on account of disallowance of interest expenses.
4. The assessee preferred an appeal against the above assessment order. According to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee only asked for adjournment on two occasions and no documents/ evidence were filed by the assessee, accordingly the appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the assessee duly responded to notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and also furnished detailed submissions in support of appeal. However, due to reasons best known to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the above said submissions were not taken into consideration and the appeal was decided by treating as if the assessee had not filed any reply. Ld. AR filed copy of various submissions furnished online before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the online acknowledgement of above said submissions were also produced before the bench. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has decided the appeal after discussing the merits of the case, however at the same time we also find that various submissions filed by the assessee were not taken into consideration by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In this regard, we further find that the assessee has filed written submissions on 28.08.2024 containing 29 documents in 3 3 online acknowledgements are also filed before the bench. The assessee again filed online reply on 01.10.2024 before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wherein total of 32 documents were filed in 4 instalments since all those documents could not be attached in one go. A perusal of all these online reply furnished by the assessee proves that the assessee has duly responded to the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and also furnished online written submissions along with supporting documents before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however the above said submission remained to be considered by Ld. CIT(A)NFAC. Accordingly, we find force in the arguments of Ld. counsel of the assessee that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not correct.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard