Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Parvati Fabrics Ltd., engaged in textile manufacturing, retailing, and trading, filed its return for AY 2014-15 declaring an income of Rs. 1,41,55,380/-. The Assessing Officer added unsecured loans of Rs. 60,00,000/- and interest expenses of Rs. 5,30,960/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.
Held
The ITAT noted that the assessee had requested an adjournment before the CIT(A), which was not considered, leading to an ex-parte order. The Revenue had no objection to setting aside the matter.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO without considering the assessee's request for adjournment.
Sections Cited
68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth
Parvati Fabrics Ltd. Deputy Commissioner F-Tower, of Income Tax, Shree Kuberji Textile Vs Majura Gate, Surat Park, B/H Belgium Square, Gujarat-395003 PAN: AABCP4170E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA Revenue Represented: Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 07-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 09-05-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15.
A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 Parvati Fabrics Ltd. vs. DCIT
Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing retailing and trading of textiles. For the Asst. Year 2014-15, assessee filed its Return of Income on 17-09-2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,41,55,380/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and the unsecured loans of Rs.60,00,000/- was said to be not proved to the satisfaction of the A.O. and interest expenses of Rs. 5,30,960/- is added as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and demanded tax thereon.
Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has given four opportunities of hearing on 24-04-2017, 19-01-2021, 24-03-2023 and 04-01-2024. Since no written submissions was filed by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved against the exparte appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us and submitted that the assessee sought for an adjournment, however the same was not considered by Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore Ld. Counsel pleaded to set aside the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case on merits.
Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue has no serious objection in setting aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and to decide it on merits of the case.
Recording the submissions of both the parties, the exparte appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside with a direction to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 Parvati Fabrics Ltd. vs. DCIT Needless to say, the assessee should cooperate by filing all necessary details, documents before Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh appellate order.
In the result, the appeal filed the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 09-05-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 09/05/2025 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, सूरत