M/S. AVJ DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2519/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 October 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1.50 crore as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and disallowed Rs. 1.93 lakh as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the addition under Section 68 and disallowance of expenditure were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR
Hearing: 04.09.2019

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

Appellant, M/s. A V J Developers P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2011-12 on the grounds inter alia that :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in passing the impugned order of appeal dismissing the appeal in limine without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant to present his submission in support of the grounds of appeal raised before him.

2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO making addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the I T Act holding the share capital of the above amount as unexplained cash credit.

3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.193000/- holding the same as capital expenditure being the amount incurred for announcement of authorized share capital.”

2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand are : The assessee is into the business of purchase and sale of commercial property and development of group housing residential society. Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the share capital of the aforesaid amount is unexplained cash credit. AO also made disallowance of Rs.1,93,000/- treating the same as capital expenditure being the amount incurred for announcement of authorized share capital and assessed the total income at Rs.2,54,20,570/-.

3. Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

Assessee has not preferred to put in appearance despite 4. issuance of the notice and consequently, we proceeded to decide the present appeal with the assistance of the ld. Senior DR as well as on the basis of documents available on the file.

5.

We have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative for the revenue to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.

Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) goes to prove that the ld. CIT (A) though decided the appeal on merit but in the absence of the assessee who stated to have not appeared despite numerous opportunities. We are of the considered view that in the absence of the assessee, the ld. CIT (A) has merely ratified the order passed by the AO without deciding the validity and legality of the assessment order. To decide the controversy at hand once for all, we are of the considered view that the assessee is required to be provided with one more opportunity of being heard. So, the present case is remanded back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 1st day of October, 2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →