PARMINDER SINGH SABHARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3469/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 September 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit and the assessee was not properly heard, the matter should be remanded. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and represent the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-appearance. The assessee claimed to have shifted residence and not received notices, thus being denied natural justice. The CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring service of notice, thereby denying natural justice. Whether the additions and disallowances made by the AO are justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 80C,Section 80D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-
Hearing: 19.09.2019Pronounced: 20.09.2019

This appeal is filed against the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by CIT(A)- 14, New Delhi by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under :

1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal vide ex- parte appellate order dt. 09.12.2016, on the ground that none attended the appellate proceedings, without ensuring that the notices sent during the appellate proceedings were served upon the assessee or not. The reason for not attending the appellate proceedings was that the assessee had already shifted from “9/84, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi-26

2.

That on the facts of the case and under the law, the impugned appellate order is liable to be annulled, as the natural justice was denied to the assessee.

3. That the ld. CIT(A) had failed to appreciate that though the ld. A.O. had mentioned that he had passed the assessment order u/s 143(3).

4.

That the ld. CIT(A) had failed to appreciate that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not furnishing certain details / documents, as required by the ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the addition of Rs. 2,08,000/- is unjustified. 6. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the addition of Rs. 15,33,454/- is unjustified. 7. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the addition of Rs. 1,46,011/- is unjustified. 8. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the addition of Rs. 13,37,000/- is unjustified. 9. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the addition of Rs. 16,64,698/- is unjustified. 10. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 26,060/- is unjustified. 11. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 93,400/- claimed under chapter VIA (Rs. 78,400/- u/s 80C on a/c of school fees of children and Rs. 15,000/- u/s 80D on a/c of mediclaim premium paid), is unjustified. 12. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the addition of Rs. 46,17,387/- u/s 40(a)(ia) made by the ld. A.O. is unjustified.”

3.

The assessee is engaged in the business of export of auto parts under the name and Style of M/s. Superior Overseas. The return declaring income of Rs. 4,33,543/- was filed on 26.09.2012. The Assessing Officer made various additions and completed the assessment order on 12.03.2015.

4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-appearance.

5.

At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee despite giving proper notice.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order as well as the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has not decided the issues on merit. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back all the issues contested before the CIT(A). We further clarify that the assessee will appear before the CIT(A) and represent the case as per the requirements of law. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

In result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th September, 2019.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →