SHREE RAMASHREE CONST. PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 848/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal in the absence of the assessee and without providing an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a builder and developer, filed its return of income declaring Nil income. The Assessing Officer made additions and completed the assessment under section 144. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, but the assessee appealed further.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions and disallowances without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard. Whether the assessment completed under section 144 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 41(1),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 22/07/2019Pronounced: 24/07/2019

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Thane [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2013- 14.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of purchases of Rs. 12,45,016/-.

ITA No. 848/M/2018 A.Y.2013-14

2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of amount of creditors amounting to Rs.31,35,945/- considering it to be cessation of liability u/s 41 (1).

3.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,65,95,207/- under section 68 being addition to loans made during the year alleging it to be unexplained cash credit. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.20,78,882/- being 15% of the entire indirect expenses merely on conjectures and surmises. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of completing the assessment u/s 144 and making various ad-hoc additions. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.Nil. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, the return was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company is builder & developer. The assessee company filed the returned income in sum of Rs.Nil. The other figures in the balance-sheet are Capital & Reserves (- )22,84,096/-, Borrowings Rs.24,31,22,682/- & Current liability 28,89,42,295/- and Assets Rs.1,20,02,728/-, Long Term Advances Rs.15,41,40,245/-, Work in Progress (WIP) of Rs.35,42,98,609/- and other current assets for Rs.93,39,298/-. The detail asked in pursuance of notice u/s 142(1) was not properly replied. Thereafter, the income of the assessee

ITA No. 848/M/2018 A.Y.2013-14 was assessed in sum of Rs.3,37,48,010/- after certain disallowance. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the claim of the assessee by virtue of order dated 17.11.2017 in question. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and perused the record. In fact, the Ld. Representative of the assessee did not appear before us. On appraisal of the order passed by the CIT(A), we noticed that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. A proper and reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the assessee before the deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law.

5.

For this proposition we place reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 6. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on all the issues and restore the matter before the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law

ITA No. 848/M/2018 A.Y.2013-14

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →