Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT
PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 30.11.2016, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. In the grounds of appeal
, the Assessee has raised following grounds:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,57,20,144/- without ensuring as to whether the notice issue as per provisions of Section 250 of the Act was served on the assessee or not.
Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in passing the impugned order without giving a sufficient and proper opportunity to the assessee. The impugned order is therefore passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal u\s 143(3) by discussing the penalty order u\s271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not adjudicating the ground of appeal
raised by the assessee that the Ld. AO has erred in estimating the income and made addition of Rs. 1.96 crore without bringing on record material or evidence or any other basis of estimation.
5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in conforming the addition of Rs. 9,60,98,093 on account of increase in current liability without appreciating the facts that the liability represent trade credit from kwality Dairy India Ltd. which is a listed company and conformation of which was duly submitted with the Ld. AO at the time of assessment.”
2. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the appellate proceedings, appeal has been decided ex-parte by the Ld. CIT (A). The representation before CIT (A) could not be made for the reason that the counsel who was handling the matter on behalf of the assessee was not well and eventually he had expired, therefore, compliance could not be made before the Ld. CIT (A). However, in the interest of justice, he prayed that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. He further informed that because of this reason also proper representation could not be made before the Assessing Officer. He thus, submitted that in the interest of justice matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Ld. DR. too does not have any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh.
From the perusal of the impugned orders, we find that letters and notices sent by the Assessing Officer to the assessee were not served. The assessee was suffering from acute illness by H1N1 virus. Ld. Assessing Officer however has passed the assessment order making huge additions of Rs.11,62,31,684/-. Again due to non-compliance on behalf of the assessee, the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by way of ex-parte order. In the wake of the facts and circumstances that the assessee was suffering from serious illness during the course of assessment proceedings and such circumstances again aggravated by when the counsel who was authorized to handle the matter had died during the course of appellate proceedings. Under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issues as raised in the grounds of appeal afresh and in accordance with law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th February, 2020.