Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “Friday E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S.SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.
Assessee has preferred an application for early hearing in ITA number 6363/del/2017 filed against the order of the ld CIT(A)-37, New Delhi dated 19.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
Assessee submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal ex parte on the ground that notices remained un- complied with during the appellate proceedings.
He submitted that there was no deliberate non-compliance on the part of the appellant company. He stated that there was a compliance made by the counsel of the appellant by filing an application from the 1st date of hearing namely on 25/05/2015 to 03/05/2016. To demonstrate these facts he submitted a chronology of event. He further submitted that subsequently, the matter was transferred to the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, New Delhi. Further, on 19/09/2017 one of the Directors had suffered an untimely demise who was the only person aware of the issues involved in the appeal. Therefore, it was prayed before the learned CIT(A) that some more time may be granted to assessee to obtain relevant records.
However, the learned CIT(A) did not accept the aforesaid prayer and passed the order on the same date. He also referred to adjournment application dated 19/09/2017. He further submitted that there were certain change in the management of the company prior to the order of the assessment passed on 24/03/2014 and the new management was not at all aware about the appellate proceedings as it did not have any access to the records of the proceedings until 2018. He further stated that in fact the complete records are still not available with the present management, and inspection of the assessment records has also not been allowed till date, by the learned Assessing Officer, on account of non-payment of demand. He further referred to the change of shareholders in the company. He therefore submitted that there were genuine and bona fide reasons for alleged non- compliance before the learned CIT(A). In view of this he submitted that either assessee should be granted an early hearing in this appeal or matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A).
The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected to early hearing petition filed by the assessee and submitted that when the assessee has not appeared before the learned CIT(A), there is no reason that assessee should be granted early hearing in this matter before the coordinate benches.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions in the present case the assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, New Delhi dated 19/09/2017 for Assessment Year 2006-07.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment u/s 143(3)/l 47 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment u/ 143(3 )/147 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) h; erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making < aggregate addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- on account of share Page | 2 capital by treating as alleged income from undisclosed sources and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.
4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an aggregate addition Rs. 1,85,00,000/- on account of share capital is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.3,70,000/- on account of alleged commission paid u/s 69C of the Act.
6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- on account of share capital received from M/s Kripa Finvest (P) Ltd. u/s 68 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.
7. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- or account of share capital received from M/s Kripa Finvest (P) Ltd. u/s 68, is bad ir law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order and that too without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
9. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
6. On careful consideration it is found that the learned assessing officer has passed an order u/s 143 (3) read with section 147 of the income tax act on 24/3/2014 wherein the income of the assessee is assessed at Rs. 30887550/– wherein the addition for bogus accommodation entries is made of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- expenditure incurred on bogus accommodation entry of Rs. 370,000/- and share capital of Rs. 12,000,000/- has been added in the hands of the assessee against the returned income of only Rs. 17548/-.
7. Undoubtedly the assessee has been given the number of opportunities to appear before the learned CIT(A). However, none appeared before him and therefore the learned CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. It is not that the learned CIT(A) passed order for non-prosecution by assessee, but, the order was passed on the merits of the matter. The order was also passed in absence of the assessee. Further, it is not the case that assessee has not sought time before the learned CIT(A), it is also not the case that the request Page | 3