Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual engaged in business as a trading and building contractor, filed an Income-tax return for AY 2013-14 declaring Rs. 24,55,050/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) at Rs. 2,91,77,466/-, making significant additions related to capital introduction, unsecured loan, and a loan from SBBD. The learned CIT(A) confirmed these additions by dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, as the assessee was not properly represented.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 71-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. Recognizing that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is now directed to pass a speaking order after granting the assessee a full opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, thereby confirming the AO's additions under sections like 68, 145(3), and 80C, without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 127, Section 68, Section 145(3), Section 80C, Section 234B, Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘CIT(A) in short’) dated 30.12.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14.
The grounds of appeal
filed by assessee, reads as under:
1. That the order dated 30.12.2022 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, and is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and the same is liable to be quashed.
Vikas Sharma vs. ACIT 2 2. That the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer ('AO') for Assessment Year ('AY') 2013- 14, and the additions/disallowances made are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and based on conjectures and surmises and the NFAC has wrongly upheld the same.
That the proper opportunity was not given by the NFAC to the Appellant to enable him to represent his case properly.
The additions made are illegal, unjust, and arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises. The same cannot be justified on the bases of material available on record.
That the Assessment order passed by the ACIT Circle 55(1), New Delhi is illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction as the said ACIT Circle 55(1), New Delhi in the absence of the order under Section 127 of the Act was not competent to pass the said assessment order.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in confirming/upholding the additions/disallowances made by the AO vide order dated 30.03.2016 and assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs. 2,91,77,470/- against the returned income of Rs. 24,55,050/-.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in upholding the additions/disallowance made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 78,69,000/- on account of capital introduction.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in upholding the additions/disallowance made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,59,08,016/-on account of fresh unsecured loan.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in upholding the additions/disallowance made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 29,45,400/- on account of loan taken from Sri. Bankey Bihari Builders & Developers.
Vikas Sharma vs. ACIT 3 10. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in upholding/confirming the finding of the AO of rejecting the book of the Appellant under Section 145(3) of the Act.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in upholding/confirming the finding of the AO in applying the net profit rate of 8% on account of contractual receipts and 3% on trading receipts.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in upholding/confirming the finding of the AO by disallowing the deduction under Section 80C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in charging interest under Sections 234B of the Act.
That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
That the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant, and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and have been wrongly ignored.
The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing the appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that in this case, assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading of Cements & Fabrics and building contractor. For the A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee filed his Income-tax return declaring his total income to be Rs. 24,55,050/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and show cause notices were issued. Based on the submissions of the assessee, the AO completed the Vikas Sharma vs. ACIT 4 assessment vide order under section 143(3) dated 30.03.2016 and assessed the total income at Rs. 2,91,77,466/- by making the following additions : i. On account of capital Introduction Rs.78,69,000/- ii. On account of unsecured loan Rs.1,59,08,016/- iii. On account of loan of SBBD Rs.29,45,400/-
The above was confirmed by learned CIT(A).
Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us.
At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 71 days in filing this appeal. There is a reasonable cause which has been attributed to the illness of the assessee.
Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the records, we condone the delay. Regarding the issue in dispute, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was not properly represented before the learned CIT(A). Hence, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution and confirmed the order of the AO as no submissions were made on behalf of the assessee. The learned Counsel prayed that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to properly canvas the appeal before the learned CIT(A).
The learned DR did not have any objection to this proposition.
Vikas Sharma vs. ACIT 5 9. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after given the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2024