SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1926/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 May 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the case to the Assessing Officer. This was to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case on merits, as both the assessee's counsel and the DR agreed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO, including cash deposits and disallowance of depreciation. The assessee argued that the assessment was converted from limited to complete scrutiny without adequate opportunity and that the CIT(A) order was ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity during assessment and appeal proceedings, and whether the additions made were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R
For Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

Date of hearing : 17-05-2022 Date of pronouncement : 18-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad in Appeal no. CIT(A)-8/10395/17-18 vide order dated 04/10/2019 passed for the assessment year 2015-16.

Page No. 2 Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT Appeals 8 Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in passing appellate order dated 04/10/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of appellant by confirming disallowances/additions made in the assessment order and justify the converting the limited scrutiny assessment in to the complete scrutiny by the A.O.

2. The Ld. CIT Appeals erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of cash deposit amounting to Rs. 24,50,000/- made in the bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation on plant & machinery of Rs. 93,07, 546/-

4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of depreciation on Cars amounting to Rs. 6,19,268/-

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal on or before of the final hearing of appeal.”

3.

Further, the assessee has also taken the additional grounds of appeal:

“1. The assessment proceedings conducted by the Ld. A.0. is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction and Contrary to instruction of the CBDT.

2. The Ld AO has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of cash deposits U/S 69A of the Act when amount is duly recorded in books of accounts.”

Page No. 3 Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT

4.

We note that there is a delay of 22 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has also filed an affidavit stating that the appeal could not be filed in time since the company was in search of chartered accountant to file their case, and hence this process caused a delay of 22 days in filing appeal. Considering the trivial period of default which is only 22 days, in the interests of justice, we are hereby condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. DR has also not objected to the coordination of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of appeal is being condoned.

5.

During the course of hearing, the counsel for the assessee has submitted that he shall not be pressing the Additional Grounds of Appeal and also, he shall not be pressing Ground Number 1 of the original grounds of appeal. He shall be only pressing Ground Numbers to 2 to 4 of the original grounds of appeal.

6. Now on the merits of the case, the counsel for the assessee has submitted that initially the assessment was opened by way of “limited scrutiny” and on 08.12.2017, proposal was sent by AO to PCIT to convert limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. The approval was granted by the Principal CIT on 11.12.2017 and the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 19.12.2017. Accordingly, no/inadequate opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee to present his details leading to the aforesaid additions. Even, the order by Ld. CIT(Appeals) was passed ex parte since as per the assessee, he had not received the notice of date of hearing, and hence he could not cause appearance before first appellate authority to present his case. The Counsel for the assessee has submitted that Page No. 4 Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT he has good case in merits, and requested that the matter be kindly set aside to the file of assessing Officer so as to enable him to file the requisite details and present his case in merits. The Ld. DR has also not objected to the aforesaid request of the counsel for the assessee In the interest of justice, we are therefore restoring the case to the file of the assessing officer pass a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present his case on merits.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 18-05-2022 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 18/05/2022 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →