DGM TUBES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8 (4), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 579/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 October 2022AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had given opportunities, the assessee failed to represent its case. However, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for one more effective opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order of the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition made by the AO. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, and whether the assessee is entitled to a fresh opportunity for representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI SS VISHWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri V. L. Jain
Pronounced: 11/10/2022

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

2.

The solitary controversy under the present appeals gyrates around the attraction of provisions of section 68 to the accommodation credit entries recorded.

3.

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.”

4.

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

1.

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.

5.

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.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →