Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/1/2019 passed by CIT(A)- 22, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“ 1. The assessee has not been allowed proper opportunity of presenting the facts of the case he nee the order deserves to be modified/ cancelled.
2. The evidence of replies received from the creditors not confronted to the assessee could not be the basis of addition of Rs. 16, 89,450/- and it deserves to be deleted.
3. The creditors are on account of shares purchased as such they are liabilities due to be paid by the assessee and no addition as unexplained liability can be made in the hands of the assessee.
The companies are genuine and as such the finding in the order are illegal and deserve to be deleted.
The order is illegal and bad at law and therefore deserves to be modified.
The addition of Rs16,89,450/- deserves to be deleted.”
The assessee is a Private Ltd Company. The Assessing Officer made addition Rs. 16,89,450/- on account of unexplained liability.
4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order and the Assessing Officer has also not taken cognizance of the evidences filed during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee be given opportunity to plead its case before the Assessing Officer.
6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order, but the assessee has not availed 5 opportunities given by the CIT(A). We further notice that there is no proper reason given by the assessee for non appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are directing the assessee to deposit Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister’s relief fund. But at the same time the Assessing Officer has also not taken cognizance of the evidences produced during the Assessment proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as the Assessing Officer has also not taken cognizance of the evidences placed before the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following 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 20th March, 2020.