Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative society engaged in manufacturing and sale of sugar, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2014-15. The assessee's original return declared total income at 'Nil', but the assessment was completed at Rs.1,89,46,337/-.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte order was passed due to the sudden demise of the assessee's counsel, which prevented representation. Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the lower authority was justified, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case due to the unforeseen demise of their counsel.
Sections Cited
37(1), 36(1)(xvii), 143(3), 254
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Vs. DCIT, Circle, Sangli. Kharkhana Ltd., Gat. No.182/1, Yashwantnagar, Chikhali- 415408. PAN : AAAAV0215B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai : Date of hearing : 25.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15.
The assessee 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 ex-parte order and erred in deciding the issue only on the basis of material available with them, this action is being violative of principal of natural justice. Your appellant prays for granting opportunity of hearing before lower authorities.
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 lower authorities have erred in making an addition of Rs.55,06,298/- to the total income of sugar factory, by invoking provisions of section 37(1), by alleging that, sugarcane purchase price paid in the FY 2012-13 is over and above the fair and remunerative price (FRP) declared by Central Government, without appreciating the fact that appellant has fixed and declared the cane price, before the end of the FY 2012-13 and the provision for the purchase of sugarcane at said price has been made in the accounts, before the end of same FY, further the issue is also covered by Section36(1)(xvii) of the IT Act, in view of the same, your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law lower authorities have erred in making an addition of Rs.1,34,40,039/- on account of sale of sugar to the members at concessional rate, without appreciating the fact that the above- mentioned practice of selling sugar at concessional rate is a custom in the co-operative sugar industry in the state of Maharashtra. With an intention to induce the sugar cane producers to give all the sugar cane produced by him to the Sugar factory. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition 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 an AOP co- operative society engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of sugar and its by products and has furnished its return of income declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The case was selected under scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on 21.11.2016 by determining income at Rs.1,89,46,337/- vide order dated 11.09.2017. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also upheld the above assessment order. The assessee than preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the IT Act on 28.03.2023 by determining income at Rs.1,89,46,337/-.
4. Since assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that there was reasonable cause in not appearing before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. AR clarified that earlier Mr. M. K. Kulkarni was looking after the income tax matters and due to his sudden demise the dates of hearing provided by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC remained unattended. Ld. AR contended before the Bench that the assessee was under impression that the matter is looked after by Mr. M. K. Kulkarni and his staff therefore he was fully dependent on his consultant and unfortunately the consultant died and due to this reason alone the appeal hearings remained unattended resulting in ex-parte order passed by Ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to support the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue supported the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
7. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. The solitary prayer made by the Counsel of the assessee before us is to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC so that he can substantiate the grounds of appeal since due to the sudden demise of the earlier counsel the case by the assessee could not be represented & which resulted in unfortunate ex-parte order by LD. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per