GRIN BEAR ENERGY LIMITED,PATNA vs. DC/AC, PATNA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte. The assessee claimed that the introduction of capital was part of the balance sheet and there was no difference in the claimed loss. The assessee did not receive hearing notices as their business address might have been outdated. Considering the interests of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 56 days, and the delay was condoned. The assessee was aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer, including Rs. 11,00,000 for fresh capital introduction and Rs. 18,49,406 for excess loss claimed. The assessee contended that the assessment order was ex-parte and that facts were not correctly appreciated.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, especially when the orders were passed ex-parte and the assessee claims factual errors.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG
order : 13.02.2025 ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.05.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
This appeal of assessee is time barred by 56 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made the said application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.11,00,000/- on account of introduction of fresh capital and addition of Rs.18,49,406/- was made on account of excess loss claimed in the revised return as compared to the loss claimed in the original return.
I.T.A. No.: 579/PAT/2024 Grin Bear Energy, AY : 2012-13 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex parte/best judgment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that in fact there was a mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in correctly appreciating the facts on file. He has submitted that the introduction of capital of Rs. 11,00,000/- in the shape of unsecured loans was already part of the Balance Sheet of the assessee filed along with the original return of income. He has further submitted that even there was no difference of amount of loss claimed by the assessee in the return of income. He has further brought my attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A). He has further submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing from the ld. CIT(A) as the business of the assessee was closed down in the year 2012 and the notices were sent on business address which might have returned unserved. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that he may be given an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. Impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly, set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh on the issue. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- The State Of Karnataka vs. M/S Itd Cemindia JvKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Aman Motors vs. The Commissioner CGST & Ors.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Imperial Marketing vs. Principal Commissioner Of CGST Delhi NorthDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026