SERENITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1164/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 July 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and had not considered the submissions and reconciliations filed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merit, ensuring principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Serenity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., engaged in infrastructure development, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,23,06,574/- on account of alleged short reflection of contract receipts. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an order without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and by not considering the submissions and evidence placed on record.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.07.2022Pronounced: 22.07.2022

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1 The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the appellate order without granting an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

2.

The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the appellate order on 07.06.2019 despite the fact that the adjournment application was filed on 06.06.2019 by the appellant which was duly acknowledged and stamped by the office of the ld. CIT(A)-8. Copy of adjournment application filed and acknowledged on 06.06.2019 is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure-A.

Page 2 of 3 3. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of ld. AO in making the addition of Rs.1,23,06,574/- on account of alleged short reflection of contract receipts.

4.

Both the Ld. Authorities have erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating and considering various submissions, evidences and supporting placed on record during the course of the assessment proceedings and not properly appreciating various facts and laws in its proper perspective.

5.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act.

6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.”

3.

The assessee company is engaged in the business of infrastructure development. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 31.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.37,49,390/-. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of short reflection of contract receipt amounting to Rs.1,23,06,574/-.

4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of hearing while passing the order by the CIT(A) and decided the case without taking cognizance of the submissions made before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee by following the principles of natural justice.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Ld. AR demonstrated before us that the CIT(A) has not heard the assessee while deciding the issue on merit and there are certain reconciliation filed

Page 3 of 3 before the CIT(A) which was never considered by the CIT(A) before dismissing the appeal of the assessee on merit. In the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remand back all the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merit. Needless to say assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 22nd day of July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →