TRINETRA ALUMINIUM ALLOYS,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2427/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 December 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2,37,56,927/- as unexplained income under sections 68/69A and assessed the total income at Rs. 2,52,07,557 under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking order on the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking order on merits, and whether the underlying ex-parte assessment with addition for unexplained income was valid under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.12.2024Pronounced: 16.12.2024

ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :

1.

The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 17.1.2024, relating to assessment year 2013- 14 on the following grounds:- 1) That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at total income of Rs. 2.52,07,557 as against returned income of Rs. 14,50,630 and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax and interest demanded thereon.

2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal in liminie without passing a speaking order or going into merits of the cause.

3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A O has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction over the case to initiate assessment proceedings and pass impugned order when the statutory and jurisdictional requirements under section 147 to 151 were not fulfilled 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in framing the assessment when the proceedings and order were barred by limitation.

5) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A O has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte assessment order us 144 of the Income Tax Act, that too without giving any opportunity of being heard.

6) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.2,37,56,927/- as unexplained income and that too by vague application of facts and based only on surmises and conjectures.

7) That in any view of the matter and in any case the action of AO in making an addition of Rs. 2,37,56,927/- is bad in law and against the fats and circumstances of the case.

8) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, AO has erred in law and on facts in making the above disallowance without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice.

2.

In this case, AO made addition of Rs. 2,37,56,927/- by treating the same as unexplained income u/s. 68/69A of the Act and assessed the income at Rs. 2,52,07,557 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse for non- prosecution by applying Multiplan decision.

3.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assesse, despite issue of notice, hence, we are deciding the appeal of the assesse exparte qua the assesse. Upon careful consideration, we note that it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order, but he has failed to do so. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →