PANESHWAR DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance despite multiple opportunities. The Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order under Section 144 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliant and evasive attitude towards notices from tax authorities. However, in the interest of justice and at the request of the assessee's counsel, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be allowed for statistical purposes by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, despite the assessee's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
Sec 144, Sec 80-P, Sec 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 341/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Paneshwar Dudh Utpadak Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Ward-1, 1, Paneshwar Dudh Mandli, At: Bardoli Paneshwar, Taluka: Magraol, Surat-394410 [PAN No.AAATP5128J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Ankita Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 06.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2015-16.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 22,74,588/- on account of low GP margin. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 29,08,682/- on account of Disallowance of 25% of Current Liabilities.
ITA No.341/Srt/2024 Paneshwar Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2015-16 - 2– 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 2,92,259/- as On account of Income from Interest and dividend under the Chapter head "Income from Other sources". 4. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and on facts, of rejecting Books of Accounts u/s. 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when Books of Accounts duly audited, completely maintained and written and without pointing out any major discrepancies in Books of Accounts and that is also without issuing Show cause Notice and showing proper reason or justification for rejecting the Books of Accounts only ground of lower G.P. in compare to succeeding previous year. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts, in not allowing deduction u/s. 80-P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is legally and lawfully allowed to assessee 6. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. AR of the assessee had requested under Rule 46 A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to Ld. CIT(A) when physical hearing was there. Ld. CIT(A) had remanded the matter with Ward - 1, Bardoli and Assessee had submitted all the relevant documents along with Books of Accounts and Audit Report with Assessing Officer though without taking Remand report from Assessing Officer Ld. CIT(A) has passed the Order u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is cruel on assessee as he had submitted all the details, documents and information along with Audit Report with Assessing Officer. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 7. 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. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the assessee made addition of Rs. 22,74,588/- on account of low GP rate and also made certain disallowances amounting to Rs. 29,08,682/-.
In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance, since the assessee, despite having being granted several opportunities of hearing, did not cause appearance.
ITA No.341/Srt/2024 Paneshwar Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2015-16 - 3–
The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A).
On going through the records of the case, we observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice on 28.03.2016, 23.09.2016, 28.06.2017, 24.08.2017 and 03.10.2017. However, despite issuance of above notices, none appeared before the Assessing Officer and he proceeded to pass ex-parte order under Section 144 of the Act, on the basis of information available on record. Further, even before Ld. CIT(A) we observe that he issued as many as seven notices dated 06.05.2019, 29.12.2020, 17.05.2023, 05.07.2023, 11.07.2023, 13.11.2023 and 19.01.2024, all of which remained uncomplied with. Therefore, from the records available before us, clearly the assessee has maintained a non- complaint and an evasive attitude in response to several notices of hearing issued by the Tax Authorities. However, at the request of the Counsel for the assessee, in the interest of justice, the assessee is hereby given one more opportunity and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. However, we make it clear that in case there is further non-compliance on part of the assessee in response to notices issued by the Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, on the basis of materials available on record.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.341/Srt/2024 Paneshwar Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2015-16 - 4–
Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 07/03/2025
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07/03/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत/ ITAT, Surat
