MRS. PUSHPA SALUJA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5762/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the matter on merits, it was appropriate to remand the case back. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present her case.

What were the facts?

The assessee is engaged in the business of ladies garments and accessories. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 36,24,768/- on account of bogus sundry creditors, as confirmations were not received for all parties. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is illegal due to non-service of notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit and whether the addition on account of bogus creditors is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHISmt. Pushpa Saluja

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29/07/2019

Assessee by: None Department by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/07/2019 Date of 29/07/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 21.7.2016, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) 15 Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2012-13. In the grounds of appeal assessee has raised following grounds: 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order is illegal and unjustified since statutory notice u/s 143(2) was not served upon the assessee on or before the time limit laid down in the proviso to section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 and, therefore, the entire addition is liable to be deleted.

2. That no proper opportunity of being heard was provided. In the assessment order itself, the AO has mentioned that he initiated assessment proceedings vide notice u/s 143(2) dated 12/02/2015 and the assessment order was passed on 27/03/2015, i.e., within a short span of 40 days. Hence, principle of natural justice was violated and, therefore, the entire addition is liable to be deleted.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 36,24,768/- on the alleged ground of bogus creditors is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, the addition is liable to be deleted.

4.

That the charging of interest under section 2346 is illegal and unjustified and, therefore, ought to be deleted.”

2.

The facts in brief are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and trading of ladies garments, accessories. Ld. AO has made addition on account of bogus sundry entries for sums amounting to Rs. 36,24,768/- out of total sundry creditors shown at Rs. 68,60,304/-. Ld. AO has noted that out of 17 parties shown as sundry creditors, the confirmations could be received only for sums amounting to Rs. 32,35,536/- and other creditors have not filed their confirmation. Based on this reasoning, he has made the addition of Rs. 36,24,768/-.

3.

Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex parte order on the ground that assessee has not made compliance on dates fixed without adjudicating it on merits.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →