Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1525 & 1526/Ahd/2019 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15)
Sarita R. Jadon बनाम/ D.C.I.T. Prop. of Advance Panchmahal Circle, Vs. Engineering And Godhra Construction Co. At & PO. Timba Road, Tal. Godhra, Dist. Panchmahal �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AIGPJ5515K .. (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent)
अपीलाथ� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.R. Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT.DR & ��यथ� क� ओर से / Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. Respondent by : D.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of 20/01/2022 Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of 21/01/2022 Pronouncement
ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM:
Both captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara (‘CIT(A)’ in short) vide Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-Vadodara-4/10199/ 2016-17 & CIT(A)-Vadodara-4/10564/ 2016-17 both dated 31.07.2019 arising out of assessment orders dated 30.03.2016 & 27.12.2016 passed by
ITA Nos. 1525 & 1526/Ahd/2019 (Sarita R. Jadon) AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 2 - the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) & 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act); respectively concerning AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15.
Since the facts in issues relate to the common grievance, both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1525/Ahd/2019 (A.Y.2013-14) read as under:-
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without considering the written submission filed before his office. It is submitted that the order passed mentioning that nobody was present for appellant and that appellant does not wish to prosecute the appeal is absolutely incorrect. The appellant was duly represented by a firm of CAs and written submissions were filed, but the same have not been considered and have been totally disregarded. In view of this it is submitted that the ex-parte order passed by The Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and appellant be allowed to be heard afresh in view of principle of natural justice. 2. Without prejudice to the above Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO passed under Section 143(3) in spite the fact that no valid notice was ever served on the appellant. It is submitted that the decision of Hon'ble CIT confirming the ex-parte order and additions made is bad in law as appellant did not get the opportunity of being heard. It is submitted that in view of this the case be set aside either before the CIT(A) or before the Ld. AO. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the following additions simply by stating that the assessee has not furnished any details / explanations in this regard: Deduction claimed u/s 80C - Rs. 16,615/- Interest u/s 244A - Rs. 33,813/- Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - Rs. 6,73,079/- Labourand Wage Expenses - Rs. 37,50,342/- Piece work rate - Rs. 8,57,326/- Bogus Purchase - Rs. 9,48,054/- It is submitted that the assessee has filed all the details and evidences with regard to all the above claims showing that they are completely genuine and justifiable, however The Ld. CIT(A) failed in appreciating the details filed on record and made the huge additions merely on the presumption basis with predetermined thoughts. It is further submitted the books of accounts of the assessee have been fully vouched and
ITA Nos. 1525 & 1526/Ahd/2019 (Sarita R. Jadon) AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 3 - verifiable and there is no any adverse remark or findings on the part of Tax Auditor as well. Thus the whole additions made by Ld. CIT(A) are merely on the assumptions and predetermined thoughts and the adhoc basis. It be held so now and the incorrect additions made deserve to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 43B of the Act of Rs. 19,87,747/- stating that the same has not been paid before due date of filing of return. It is submitted that there is no any statutory dues claimed by the assessee for the year, which was out standing on the date of filing of return. It can be also be verified from the copy of Tax Audit Report available on record. The assessee has failed the details and evidences proving that the claim is genuine and justifiable. Thus the addition made by A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is totally incorrect and illegal and thus the same deserve to be deleted. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,24,68,401/- invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is submitted that the assessee is not default at all u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the complete details and evidences regarding payment and TDS deducted (wherever applicable) have been filed before the A.O. Thus the action of the A.O. and CIT(A) invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not at all correct and the impugned disallowance made by A.O. of Rs. 2,24,68,4017- deserve to be deleted. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the notional addition of Rs. 8,81,060/- on account of interest to be charged @ 12% on advances given. It is submitted that the all the advances were given to the parties out of interest free funds available with the assessee and no borrowing funds had been used for the advances given. Further it is submitted that all the advances were given to the various persons in due course of business activity and thus there is question of charging of interest on the same in view of business expediency. However the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the details and evidence filed and available on record and made the notional addition, which is totally incorrect and unlawful. Thus the impugned additions made by A.O. being incorrect and illegal, kindly be deleted.” 4. We have heard both the parties. At the outset, learned AR for the assessee moved an application for adjournment of both the appeals for the reason that preparation of paper book has been called from the assessee and the same are under preparation. Under the circumstances, this matter may kindly be adjourned. But, same is declined as we noticed that assessee neither appeared before the AO nor before the CIT(A) and no written submissions were filed by the assessee for the reason best known to her and
ITA Nos. 1525 & 1526/Ahd/2019 (Sarita R. Jadon) AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15 - 4 - now we fail to understand when non-appeared before the lower authorities how paper book will be prepared ? So, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that as nothing was filed before the lower authorities, therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside these matters to the file of the AO.
As the assessee has wasted precious time of the lower authorities and in that case, a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on the assessee in each appeal. Thus, we direct that from the date of the receipt of this order within 60 days, assessee shall deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- in each appeal with the department and thereafter, the AO shall proceed with the appeals and will decide the matters as per law.
In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 21/01/2022
Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 21/01/2022 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।