VILAS JAVDEKAR INFRACON P LTD,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 65/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 August 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed late by 721 days. The assessee claimed that the addition made was a double addition, as a similar addition was made in the case of its sister concern. The assessee also stated it could not present its case before the CIT(A) due to reasons beyond its control.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee should be set aside. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A)-5, Pune on 12-12-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time barred by 721 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for the delay, with which I am satisfied. The delay is, therefore, condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits.

Vilas Javdekar Infracon Pvt. Ltd.,

3.

The ld. AR submitted that the addition in the case of the assessee has amounted to double addition considering the fact that similar addition has also been made in the case of its sister concern, M/s.Viraj Projects Pvt. Ltd. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not present its case before the ld. CIT(A) owing to certain reasons beyond control. It was, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be accorded to the assessee to represent its case in a proper manner.

4.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessment in this case was completed u/s.143(3) determining total income of Rs.10,44,135/-. The ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte in the absence of the assessee. In view of the above factual background prevailing in the extant case, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass order afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence in support of its point of view in the fresh assessment. I order accordingly.

Vilas Javdekar Infracon Pvt. Ltd.,

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02nd August, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →