Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 after the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee argued that documents were not considered by the CIT(A) and sought another opportunity to present their case.
Held
The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A). The impugned orders were set aside and restored for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case before the CIT(A)?
Sections Cited
143(3), 144, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s P&R Agri Energy Pvt. Ltd. ITO Ward 4(4) 2nd Floor Quiet Office No.7 Room No.528 5th Floor बनाम/ Vs. Sector 35-A Chandigarh Aaykar Bhawan Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAECP-9841-P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri V.K. Aggarwal– Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 02-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid twin appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2010- 11 & 2011-12 have identical facts. The appeal for AY 2010-11 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 11-06-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 29-12-2016. In this year, Ld. AO made addition u/s 68 for Rs.134.25 Lacs. The assessee remained non-compliant during first appeal and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). The assessment as well as appellate order for AY 2011-2 is on similar lines. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us by way of present appeals.
The Ld. AR drew attention to the documents as placed in the paper- book and stated that various documents were filed during first appeal which were not, at all, considered by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case before lower authorities if granted another opportunity of hearing. Reference has been made to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Munjal BCU Centre for innovation and Entrepreneurship vs. CIT (CWP-21028-2023 (O&M) dated 04-03-2024 to support the said plea. The same has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.
Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to afford another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned orders, for both the years, are set aside and the appeals are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case.
Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 03-07-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03-07-2025. आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT CHANDIGARH