M/S. MAHESH WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6503/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 November 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an ex-parte order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 3,03,392/- by disallowing 10% of expenses for which bills/vouchers were not produced. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition by passing an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the operative part of the judgment

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 21.11.2017Pronounced: 22.11.2017

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 02.11.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-28, New Delhi.

2.

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and the appeal is decided on merit after hearing the ld. DR.

3.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case, in dismissing the appeal of appellant in limine without providing sufficient opportunity to present the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in law in conforming the ad 2 Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. hoc disallowance of Rs.3,03,392/- @ 10% of the expenses debited to the P & L account for non production before the AO of bills/vouchers in support of these expenses.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify/amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon’ble appellate authority.”

4. Vide Ground No. 1, the grievance of the assessee relates to the dismissal of appeal in limine without providing sufficient opportunity to present the case.

5.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.03.2013 declaring an income of Rs.1,06,89,610/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of Rs.3,03,392/- being 10% of the expenditure by observing that the assessee had debited various expenses amounting to Rs.30,33,923/- but no bills/vouchers had been furnished in support of the same.

6.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order and confirmed the addition made by the AO.

7.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

3 Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.

8.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex- parte. He mentioned that the final opportunity was given vide notice dated 14.10.2016 and the case was fixed for 14.10.2016 itself, which shows that a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee, particularly when, it is nowhere mentioned in the impugned order that the notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh, in accordance with law, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 22/11/2017)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →