MULTIWAL DUPLEX PVT LTD,MORADABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide sufficient opportunity of hearing and failed to give categorical findings on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a private limited company, filed a return showing a loss. The Assessing Officer assessed a lower loss, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee contended that they were not given an adequate opportunity of hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without deciding the case on merits.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDAMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by CIT (Appeals), Bareilly, for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. The order of Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts on both.
2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both while rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee without going through the facts and that the counsel of the assessee is a heart patient and due to his health problem the compliance of appeal proceeding has not been made.
3. That the Ld. DCIT has erred in law and on facts on both completing the assessment at net loss of Rs. 1,11,19,899.00 against the loss claimed as per return of Rs. 21,19,57,021/-.
4. That the Ld. AOis highly unjustified and against the facts for making disallowance of Rs. 21,39,739/- out of electricity expenses by alleging that receipt of payment dated 30/04/2015.
5. That the Ld. AO is highly unjustified and against the facts for making disallowance of Rs. 18,77,34,860/- out of total expenses by alleging that the ratio of expenditure against turnover was very much high than the immediate preceding year.
6. That the Ld. AO is highly unjustified and against the facts for making disallowance of Rs. 1,09,62,523/- out of interest on borrowed funds by alleging that an interest free advance of Rs. 9,13,54,364/- has been given while on another side there is huge trade creditors amounting to Rs. 19,71,27,160/-.
7. Any other ground of appeal(s) which may be raised during the course of hearing of appeal. “
The assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing of different kind of papers etc. The assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2015 showing loss of Rs. 21,19,57,021/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the loss at Rs. 1,11,19,899 vide assessment order dated 26.12.2017.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has not given an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to represent his case.
The Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT (Appeals).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT (Appeals) has not given any categorical finding on merits of the case and also did not give sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) was not right in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving proper opportunity of hearing. Hence, we are remanding back the entire issue to the file of the CIT (Appeals) to be decided on merits. Needless to say, the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, for statistical purpose.
In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 25th Day of November, 2020
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
