Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-5, Bangalore dated 27.02.2018for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] - 5, Bengaluru in so far it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 23,89,605/-determined by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], as against the total loss declared by the appellant of Rs. 1,20,24,171/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The ex-parte order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] is bad in law as the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which is in grave violation of principles of natural justice since the appellant received a notice dated 15/02/2018, fixing the date of hearing on 08/03/2018, to the shock of the appellant when the appellant went for the hearing posted on 08/03/2018 it was informed that an ex-parte order has been passed before the assigned date fixed for hearing of the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 23,89,605/- being the sales return credited to the respective customers account was treated as income by the learned assessing officer, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the sales return credited to the respective customers account is on account of the rejection of invoice and the product by the customers and consequently the same is in the nature of bad debts as pre the provisions of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned authorities below were not justified in not taking into account or considering the loss returned by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,20,24,171/ - on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the books of the appellant has been compulsory audited and the learned assessing officer after having accepted the books and ought to have considered and allowed the loss declared by the appellant of Rs. 1,20,24,171/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest under section 234 & 244 A of the income Tax Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further the levy of interest under section 234 D & 244 A of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal
urged above.
9. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.”
3. At the very outset, the ld. AR of assessee submitted a copy of notice of hearing dated 15.02.2018 issued by the ld. CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing for the present year on 08.03.2018. He submitted that in spite of fixing the date of hearing on 08.03.2018, CIT (A) has passed the impugned order on 27.02.2018 and hence, it is apparent that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided by CIT (A) and therefore, the matter should be restored back to his file for fresh
decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
4. I have considered the rival submissions and I find force in the submissions of ld. AR of assessee because the ld. CIT(A) has issued a notice of hearing to assessee fixing the date of hearing as 08.03.2018 but the impugned order was passed by him on 27.02.2018. Hence, this order is without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee and therefore, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.