Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a CIT(A) order, contending that it contained facts and issues pertaining to a different assessee, leading to an unsubstantiated addition of Rs. 1,19,90,000/- as cash credits under section 68 read with 115BBE during the demonetization period. The assessee also argued that the rejection of its books of accounts and the charging of interest under various sections were illegal and unjustified.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed decided the appeal without considering the assessee's relevant facts and grounds, instead relying on facts of another assessee, which was deemed a bonafide error. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an order based on facts pertaining to a different assessee; whether the addition of cash credits under section 68 read with 115BBE was justified; whether the rejection of books of accounts and charging of interest were proper.
Sections Cited
Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 154, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 234D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.
CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [“NFAC” for short], dated 17/08/2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
The grounds of Appeal are as under: -
“1. That considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant-Assessee denies its liability to be assessed at an income of Rs. 2,81,66,960/- against the returned income of Rs. 1,61,76,960-and hence denies any liability to pay tax, interest and/or penalty thereon.
2.That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the L.d. AO erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,19,90,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,19,90,000 being cash credits during demonetisation period u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering that the source of the cash deposits being bank withdrawals and cash sales, was duly explained and hence no addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE can be upheld.
4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,19,90,000/- solely on the basis of suspicion and surmises without proper application of mind, which has no place in the eyes of law.
5 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts as there existed no reason whatsoever to reject the same and as such, the rejection of books of account is illegal and unjustified.
That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an order in the case of the assessee on the facts, figures pertaining to another, different assessee, hence the order is liable to be quashed outrightly
7 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to be given another opportunity by remanding the matter back. Rather, strictures may kindly be passed for passing of the appellate order without any application of mind and on the basis of facts, figures and circumstances of another case
8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961
That the Appellant-Assessee craves the leave to add, amend, modify and/or delete any ground of appeal during the course of the appeal.”
3. There is a delay of 167 days in filing the present Appeal. An application for condoning the delay has been filed by the Assessee contending thatin the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) the facts and the issues discussed thereon was not pertaining to the Assessee, since there was an error, the Assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) for rectifying the said error. The said application filed by the assessee has not been disposed by the CIT(A) for long and finally the said application has not been entertained by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, submitted that the present Appeal has been filed with delay of 167 days in filing the Appeal, thus submitted that the delay caused in filling the present Appeal is not intentional but for the bonafide reasons mentioned above.
For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay in filing the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee on addressing on the grounds of appeal of the Assessee submitted that the CIT(A) committed error in passing the order impugned wherein the entire facts and the grounds of appeal and the submissions recorded in the order are not pertaining to the Assessee, thus submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be quashed.
6. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the grounds of appeal of the Assessee were not been decided by the CIT(A),further, the Ld. DR agreed with the contention of the Ld. AR that the facts and issues of some other case has been produced in the order impugned, however, the same is due to unintentional and the same is bonafide error of the CIT(A), therefore, sought for remanding the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal has not taken into consideration of the relevant facts and the grounds urged by the Assessee and proceeded to dismiss the Appeal by mentioning the facts of some other Assessee, in our opinion the matter should be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the Appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.