JYOTI ENTERPRISES,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6695/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 March 2020AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered certain documents filed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after considering all evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming disallowance of expenses and interest on capital was heard ex-parte. The assessee had not produced evidence before the lower authorities despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowances without considering all evidence filed before the Assessing Officer and without providing a proper hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2 + SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 26.02.2020Pronounced: 02.03.2020

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04/10/2016 passed by CIT(A)-Faridabad for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. “That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowing the expenses of Rs.25,33,341/- by the Income Tax Officer.

2. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming Rs.9,80,205/- not allowing the interest on capital to partners by the Income Tax Officer.

3.

The assessee filed return of income on 30/09/2012 declaring income of Rs. 10,56,270/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from house property and other sources. The assessment was completed on 4/3/2015 at an income of Rs.35,89,016/- thereby making addition of Rs. 25,33,349/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

None appeared for the assessee despite giving notice. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and before the CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. Before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not produced any evidence despite giving proper opportunity. In-fact, before the CIT(A) on 11 occasions, the representative of the assessee requested for adjournment and only on 30/8/2016, the reply was received to CIT(A)’s office but none appeared on the said date. But after going through the assessment order, it can be seen that certain documents were filed before the Assessing Officer which was not at all considered by the CIT(A) which should have been taken into account. There is no separate finding given by the CIT(A) to that effect. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merit after taking into account the evidences filed by the assessee 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.

8.

In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02nd March, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →