ROHELLA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-21(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5296/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2019AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments, failing which the AO was to pass an order as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged an ex parte order from the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 14,44,334 made by the AO under Section 68. The AO had made this addition due to unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, as the assessee did not appear before the AO or CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits was justified when the assessee failed to appear and substantiate its case before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Sinha, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.02.2019Pronounced: 20.02.2019

ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 1st June, 2018 of the CIT(A)-25, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

The assessee in its various grounds of appeal has challenged the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.14,44,334/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the IT Act.

3. After hearing both the sides, I find the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 27th September, 2008 declaring the total income at Rs.17,89,740/- which was subsequently revised on 05.01.2009 at an income of Rs.6,98,310/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act and statutory notices u/s 142(1) was issued. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee and considering the fact that there was cash deposit of Rs.14,44,334/- in the bank account maintained with IDBI Bank Ltd., for the impugned assessment year, the Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s 144 of the Act, made the addition of Rs.14,44,334/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

4. After hearing both the sides and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Assessing Officer shall pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →