MARUTI VITHOBA SATAV,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 200/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 July 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and not dismissed it ex-parte. The assessee should not be denied an opportunity of hearing on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in land development, filed an income tax return. The Assessing Officer made significant additions under Section 68 and restricted deductions. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order without deciding on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can confirm an assessment order without deciding the appeal on merits when the assessee fails to appear. The right of the assessee to a hearing on the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S Sasar – AR
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe - DR
Hearing: 29/06/2022Pronounced: 08/07/2022

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Pune for the A.Y. 2013-14 dated 041.10.2017.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, running the business in the name of M/s.Gaurav Enterprises engaged in the business of land development and plotting business. The assessee filed E-Return of income on 23.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.11,22,190/- after claiming chapter VIA deduction of Rs.1,03,488/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of the Act of A.Y. 2013-14 Maruti Vithoba Satav Vs. ITO (A)

Rs.1,23,75,747/- & Assessing Officer(AO) restricted the deduction under section VIA to Rs.31,301/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) held that despite granting ample opportunities, the assessee made no compliance and chose not to pursue the matter for hearing before ld.CIT(A). However, the ld.CIT(A) relying on various judicial precedents has confirmed the assessment order passed by the AO. Relevant discussion has been made in para no. 2.1 of the ld.CIT(A)’s order.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee has approached the Tribunal. The ld.Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that due to some reasons, the assessee could not appear before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has merely confirmed the assessment order without going into facts of the case.

5.

We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), it is an admitted position that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided issue on merits, instead, he dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, the assessee, in our view, should not be precluded an opportunity of hearing on merits. Our view is further strengthened by the decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in Kashmir Road Lines Vs. DCIT (2021) 123

A.Y. 2013-14 Maruti Vithoba Satav Vs. ITO (A) taxmann.com 5 where in it was held that even when the assessee is not interest in pursuing the appeal, even then, the ld.CIT(A) should dispose of the appeal on merits. In view of the aforementioned reasons, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →