Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-38, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2008-09 on the following grounds:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law having been passed ex parte without giving the assessee an appropriate and adequate opportunity of being heard in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the reassessment initiated on a dead person and therefore reassessment proceedings are void ab initio.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order are bad, both on the facts and in law and liable to be quashed, as the statutory conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been complied with.
5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are bad in the eyes of law, as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under section 148 are bad in the eyes of law and are contrary to the facts. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order passed by the AO is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened on the basis of the reasons which are vague and have been recorded without application of mind on the part of the AO.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs.11,35,484/- on account of purchases made by the assessee treating the same as bogus invoking section 69C of the Income Tax Act. 7. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming that the firm M/s Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co.& M/s Vishu Trading Co,, is not engaged in actual business, ignoring the fact that during the course of search on these firms substantial inventory in respect of the material being purchased by the assessee was found, which confirms the fact that these firms were doing actual business. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting that the inference drawn by the AO merely on the basis of a statement that these firms are not in actual business is baseless and contrary to the facts on record. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee in ignoring the fact that the quantity purchased and sold being completely tallying, the allegation that the assessee has not made purchases cannot be sustained. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the addition on account of bogus purchases, despite their being adequate material and evidences brought on record by the assessee before the AO to show that the purchases and sales were made in the regular course of business.
10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition so made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee, is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition made by the AO is untenable in the eyes of law, having been made without providing opportunity to cross examine the person on the basis of whose statement the allegations have been made against the assessee and without following the principles of natural justice.”
The assessee has filed this appeal on 01.03.2019. Registry issued RPAD to the assessee. In response to the same, assessee nor his authorized representative appeared nor filed any application for adjournment. The Bench adjourned the matter for 01.01.2020 and issued RPAD to the assessee. In spite of the same, assessee again did not appear nor filed any application for adjournment.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the address given by the assessee in Form No. 36.
Therefore, I am deciding the appeal ex parte assessee, after hearing learned DR.
I have gone through the orders passed by the Revenue authorities especially the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority dated 28.01.2019, I am of the view that learned First Appellate Authority has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law therefore, I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the learned First Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh, as per law, after giving opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 07/01/2020.