BIO NUCLEUS PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 5(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 369/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2020AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits by way of a speaking order. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring Nil income. The assessment was completed by widening the scope, determining income at Rs. 444 lacs. The CIT(A) summarily dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the merits and whether the AO erred in rejecting books of accounts and making additions without proper opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘Friday/A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Ms. Sushma ChowlaDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 07.02.2020Pronounced: 20.02.2020

Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi dated 31.10.2019.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order passed by Income Tax Officer, Wad 5(1), New Delhi {hereinafter referred to as "AO”} and Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals {hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”} are bad in law and void ab-initio.

1.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) and AO have erred in not granting a proper opportunity of being heard.

2. Without prejudice, that on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating upon the issues

Bio Nucleus Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. in dispute i.e., the Grounds of Appeal raised by the appellant in Form No. 35.

3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that:

(a) AO has wrongly rejected the books of accounts of the appellant.

(b) AO has erred in invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act.

(c) AO has erred in not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

(d) AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,65,24,132/- as income from undisclosed sources.

(e) AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.2,52,04,902/- being amount of debtors as shown in the Balance Sheet as at 31st March, 2016.

(e) AO has erred making an addition of Rs.56,54,751 being the amount of total expenditure claimed in the Profit and Loss Account.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed the return of income on 09.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. Nil and current year loss of (-) Rs.29,21,850/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.09.2017 and dated 28.09.2017 was issued and served on the assessee. Further, notice u/s 142(1) dated 04.10.2018 was also issued asking for specific details/documents.

4.

Subsequently, the assessment was completed by widening the scope after due approvals from the ld. PCIT determining the assessed income at Rs.444 lacs. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the ld.

Bio Nucleus Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. CIT (A) who summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without adjudicating the merits of the case.

5.

Before us, the ld. AR argued that given an opportunity he would represent and file all the details before the revenue authorities. The ld. DR did not object to the proposition.

6.

Hence, keeping in view the facts of the case, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to adjudicate the issues on merits by way of a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to comply the notices issued by the revenue authorities and direct that no unnecessary adjournments would be sought by the assessee while complying proceedings before the ld. CIT (A).

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/02/2020.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →