JAI BAJRANG CONTRACTOR,NAGDA vs. ITO-WARD 2(2), UJJAIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 544/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 January 2025AY 2014-20154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-representation. The AO had also passed an ex-parte assessment order. Considering the submissions, the principle of natural justice, and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by the earlier order. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by the AO and avoid unnecessary adjournments. Failing this, the AO would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jai Bajrang Contractor, a partnership firm, filed its return for AY 2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 34,590/-. The initial assessment order dated 26.12.2016 by the AO determined total income at Rs. 47,010/- after an addition of Rs. 12,417/-. Subsequently, the PCIT, Ujjain, passed a revision order u/s 263 on 25.03.2019, setting aside the assessment and directing the AO to reframe it. The AO's reframed assessment order dated 30.11.2019, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263, made additions of Rs. 9,67,542/- and Rs. 2,65,143/-, resulting in a total income of Rs. 12,67,275/-. The assessee's first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-representation. The assessee is now appealing this dismissal to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's first appeal ex-parte, thereby violating principles of natural justice, when the assessee claims lack of sufficient opportunity and awareness of proceedings? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it is from a smaller place and did not receive sufficient opportunities to make submissions before the authorities. It requested one more opportunity in the interest of justice and to justify a remand to the AO. The assessee highlighted specific observations in the AO's order regarding an addition of Rs. 9,67,542/- concerning TDS and receipts, stating they were unaware of these observations and they appeared wrong or baseless. The assessee agreed to make compliances on dates fixed by the AO. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not object to a remand to the AO but requested a direction for the assessee to represent its case diligently and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CA & AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.01.2025Pronounced: 27.01.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

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.

Jai Bajrang Contractor – 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.

3.

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 – 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.

4.

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.

5.

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 – 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.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →