Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI SS VISHWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; By the present appeal, the assessee challenged the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [for short “CIT(A)”] dt. 3101/2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”], which flown out of assessment order dt. 26/02/2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(4), Pune [for short “AO”] for assessment year [for short “AY”] 2008-09. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4
The solitary controversy under the present appeals gyrates around the attraction of provisions of section 68 to the accommodation credit entries recorded.
Before proceeding to factual matrix, it is necessary to state the ground agitated by the appellant are; “1. The ld. AO erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 51,66,509/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the same as bogus / unclaimed cash credit. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal or add to the same, if deemed necessary.”
During the course of physical hearing, the learned counsel representing the assessee [for short “AR”] without going into facts and grounds of appeal raised, at the outset adverting para 1.5 of the first appellate order entreated that, the appellant could not represent its case before the first appellate authority [for short “FAA”] consequently the appeal was dismissed ex-parte and hence in the larger interest matter requested for remand ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4
DGM Tubes Pvt. Ltd. back for fresh adjudication. Per contra the learned department representative [for short “DR”] without controverting the factual position, strongly contended that, the appellant was put to notice on several occasion & more particularly in as many as ten hearing opportunities were accorded by the Ld. FAA, which remained unattended by the appellant, this showcased a deliberate act on there part, and since appellant is casual in approach by adopting delay-dilute-delete [for short “3D”] technic, deserves no further opportunity.
Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal contesting addition, the primary ground raised during the hearing that, the Ld. FAA has passed an ex- parte order without granting sufficient opportunity, on perusal of the order of FAA however, we find that fair opportunities were indeed given to the appellant for representation which were not complied. The Ld. AR before us prayed for one final opportunity to represent before FAA and assured that, the appellant shall not seek any adjournment on remand back and further would co- operate in the early disposal of the appeal. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4
6. Since Ld. FAA has passed an ex-parte order, we in the larger interest of justice find this case fit for remanding back to the file of Ld. FAA for providing one more effective opportunity to the appellant to represent, and while doing so we also direct the appellant to co-operate for expeditious disposal seeking no adjournment. In view of this decision, all the grounds raised by the assessee are left open for de-novo adjudication in the light of applicable provision of then law in force.