What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the factual matrix of the issues, despite affording opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex-parte assessment order and a subsequent ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had upheld the Assessing Officer's estimation of net profits and disallowance of sundry creditors.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal when the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(A) failed to frame points of determination and provide detailed discussion.

Shradha & S.S. Kale Joint Venture vs DCIT | ITAT Pune 2022

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

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni

For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasanani

This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)-3, Pune‟s order dated 10-07-2018 passed in case No.PN/CIT(A)-3/DCIT Cir-3/296/2016-17/330, in proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Shradha & S.S. Kale Joint Venture

It emerges at the outset that both the Assessing Officer‟s assessment order dated 12.12.2016 estimating net profits at Rs.84,58,020/- as well as adding / disallowing sundry creditors of Rs.50,23,348/-; respectively and upheld in the CIT(A)‟s lower appellate order, has been passed ex-parte.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argued that the CIT(A) herein had afforded various effective opportunities to the assessee by way of RPAD notices which had been duly served. He fails to rebut the clinching fact that even if we reject the assessee‟s case on technical grounds alleging violation of principles of natural justice, there is hardly any denial to the fact that the CIT(A) has nowhere considered the entire factual matrix of the foregoing twin issues as contemplated u/s 250(6) requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon. This is indeed coupled with the fact that this assessee also appears to have been taking both the assessment notices as well as CIT(A)‟s opportunities for a ride. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore all the substantive grounds of assessee back to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh

Shradha & S.S. Kale Joint Venture within three effective hearings of opportunity subject to the condition that it shall be the risk and responsibility of the taxpayer only to file and prove all the necessary evidence(s); if so advised. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th July, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 28th July, 2022 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीऱधर्थी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Pune 4. The Pr.CIT-2, Pune 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे “B” / DR „B‟, ITAT, Pune गार्ड फाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Shradha & S.S. Kale Joint Venture

Date 1. Draft dictated on 12-07-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 26-07-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.

SHRADHA & S.S. KALE JOINT VENTURE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3, PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments