M/S. L&B INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 9 (1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 201/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 January 2021AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the Department.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order confirming an addition for unexplained credits. The Assessing Officer treated a sum of ₹.1,25,00,000/- transferred to the firm as unexplained credit as its utilization was not proved.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the addition made towards unexplained credit was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Hearing: 04.01.2021Pronounced: 06.01.2021

O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai dated 26.11.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. Besides challenging confirmation of addition made towards unexplained credits, the assessee also disputed the exparte order passed by raising specific ground.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 manually on 31.03.2010 admitting an income of ₹.5,321/-. However, on the basis of information received from the DDIT (Inv) that a sum of ₹.1,05,00,000/- was routed through M/s. L & B Infrastructure Developers. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued.

2.1 As per the information received from the Investigation Department, an amount of ₹.1,05,00,000/- was routed through M/s. L&B Infrastructure Developers and the same should be assessed in the hands of the partner Shri Rajesh Bajaj. A letter was addressed to the ITO Corporate Ward I(2) in this regard. Accordingly, the same was taxed in the hands of Shri Rajesh Bajaj. However, the ITO, Corporate Ward I(2), Chennai has informed that a sum of ₹.1,25,00,000/- was transferred on 30.03.2009 to the firm M/s. L & B Infrastructure Developers by Shri Rajesh Bajaj vide cheque Nos. 056901 to 056904, which was verified with the bank account of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of investments. After considering the submissions of the assessee and since the genuineness of the fund transfer was not proved by way of any supporting documents for utilization of funds, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained credit and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard both the parties through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the AR of the assessee filed an adjournment request on 21.11.2019, but not filed any details as called for and thereby the ld. CIT(A) concluded the appellate order on 26.11.2019 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the ld. Counsel has prayed that one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee may be granted to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct him to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to represent his case. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Department, failing which, the appellate order already concluded shall stand confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 06th January, 2021 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →