JAI BAJRANG CONTRACTOR,NAGDA vs. ITO-WARD 2(2), UJJAIN
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Pune [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-2(2), Ujjain [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on various grounds as mentioned in Form No. 36.
Page 1 of 4
Jai Bajrang Contractor ITA No. 544/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 2. The background facts leading to this appeal before us are such that
the assessee, a partnership firm, filed return of AY 2014-15 declaring a total
income of Rs. 34,590/-. The case of assessee was selected under scrutiny
and the AO passed assessment-order dated 26.12.2016 u/s 143(3) after
making an addition of Rs. 12,417/- and thereby determining total income at
Rs. 47,010/-. Thereafter, the PCIT, Ujjain passed revision-order dated
25.03.2019 u/s 263 whereby the assessment-order was set aside and the
AO was directed to reframe assessment after examining certain issues.
Pursuant to such direction, the AO reframed assessment vide order dated
30.11.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 after making two additions, one of Rs.
9,67,542/- and other of Rs. 2,65,143/-, to the returned income and thereby
assessing total income at Rs. 12,67,275/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried
matter in first-appeal but the first-appeal has been decided against assessee
for non-representation. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.
Having heard learned Representatives of both sides and on perusal of
orders of lower-authorities, we find that the CIT(A) has passed impugned
order ex-parte to assessee due to non-representation by assessee on the
hearings fixed and thereby dismissed the first-appeal of assessee while
upholding AO’s order. Further, the AO has also passed ex-parte assessment-
order by observing that the assessee did not make any submission to the
notices issued by him. Ld. AR for assessee, however, submitted that the
assessee is from a smaller place and did not get sufficient opportunities to
Page 2 of 4
Jai Bajrang Contractor ITA No. 544/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 make submissions before authorities and therefore one more opportunity
should be given in the interest of justice. To justify remand of this matter to
AO, Ld. AR also pointed out that in Para 6 of assessment-order, the AO has
also made following observation qua one of the additions amounting to Rs.
9,57,542/-:
“6. In view of the above discussion and on perusal of case records, it is found that the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs.66,52,531/- during the year under consideration. The assessee firm has claimed TDS of Rs.1,33,076/- but disclosed receipt of Rs.56,85,187/- only. Actual TDS in form no. 16A come to Rs.113722/- whereas the assessee has claimed Rs.133076/- i.e. TDS of Rs.19354/- has been claimed as excess but failed to offer receipts of Rs.9,67,542/- against such TDS. Therefore, an amount of Rs.9,67,642/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately on this issue.” [Undrlines supplied] Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not aware of underlined observations
made by AO in above para of assessment-order and they appear to be wrong
or baseless. Ld. AR therefore makes a limited prayer that the present case
should be remanded back to AO for consideration afresh after hearing
assessee. Ld. AR also agrees that the assessee is ready to make compliances
on the dates of hearing as may be fixed by AO.
Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if this case is
remanded to AO but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent its
case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Considering above submissions and also having regard to the
principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this
Page 3 of 4
Jai Bajrang Contractor ITA No. 544/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and
responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of
hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his
earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the
hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments
failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in
accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 27/01/2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore िदनांक/Dated : 27/01/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 4 of 4
