Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 17.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.12.2016 passed by learned ITO-1(3), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
Page 1 of 9 “1. That the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not holding that the order was bad in law. It was perverse; (2) it was based on irrelevant material; (3) it was un-reasonable; (4) there was mis-application of the provisions of law; (5) the authority misdirected.
2. That the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not holding that the party order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the A.O. was without considering the appellant company submission made on 14/03/2024 and without following rule of natural justice and fair play and was therefore a nullity and the same may be declared null and void.
3. That the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 54,14,512/- made by the learned A.O. u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards advance against AMC.
That the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,185/- on account of excess stock found during survey operation u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. That the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 56,44,071/- towards disallowance of interest on account of diversion of borrowed funds.
That in the alternative and without prejudice to the grounds stated above, the additions and disallowances made and assessed as income of the appellant be held to be high, unreasonable and unjustified and be suitably reduced.”
Ld. AR for assessee straightaway drew us to the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), the same is scanned and re-produced below:
Page 2 of 9 Page 3 of 9 Page 4 of 9
Ld. AR next submitted that the CIT(A) has passed impugned order on 17.10.2024 without considering the submission e-filed by assessee on 14.03.2024 on the designated portal of Income-tax Department. Ld. AR has filed the Acknowledgement No. 142814981140324 downloaded from portal.
The Acknowledgement contains a complete list of documents filed by assessee to CIT(A), the same is scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference:
Page 6 of 9 Ld. AR has also filed copies of above documents filed to CIT(A), in the form of a spiral book Pages 8 to 219.
4. Ld. AR, while placing above facts for consideration, prayed that the order passed by CIT(A) is not a sustainable order, the same must be set aside. After deliberations in open court, learned Representatives of both sides were ad idem that it is a fit case for remand to the file of CIT(A) for afresh adjudication of assessee’s first-appeal after considering submission of assessee. We agree to same and accordingly remand this matter to CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that the CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunities of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 16/05/2025