ASCO ENGINEERING CO.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4137/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 November 2017AY 2012-133 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's explanation adequately. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for de novo examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that their appeal was decided without a proper opportunity to be heard and that additions were made without proper justification. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's explanation in the right perspective.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without giving proper opportunity to the assessee and whether additions were made without appreciating the assessee's area of operation and other deciding factors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to principles of natural justice and assessment proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Hearing: 07/11/2017

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the CIT(A)-20, New Delhi in appeal No. 319/14-15 for the AY 2012-13.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The Ld. C. I. T. (Appeals)-20, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in deciding the high demand Appeal on the basis of the part submissions made by the Authorized Representative on 17.07.2015 i.e. almost one

year prior to passing of Appellate Order. At page 22 of the Appellate Order it has been specifically mentioned that the case was partly heard on 17.07.2015. Since the Appeal has been decided without giving proper opportunity to the Assessee, it is requested that the Appellate Order may kindly be quashed in view of the natural justice.

2. The Ld. C. I. T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additional Rs. 1.45.58.965/- towards G.P. bv applying G.P.rate of other concerns without appreciating the area of operation of the Assessee firm and other deciding factors for lower G.P. though complete details & contribution chart were filed before him. Moreover, the addition has been made without pinpointing any specific defect in the books of account and by merely comparing it with other firms which deserves to be deleted.

The Ld. C. I. T. (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of bad debts of Rs. 13,86,267/- though complete details were furnished and the amount is written off in the books and hence by virtue of Income Tax Act the same deserves ,e be allowed as bad debts.

4. Any other ground that may arise later on.”

3. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the relevant material on record. In Ground No. 1, the grievance of the assessee is that the appeal has been decided without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. In this regard, the AO’s order and the ld CIT(A)’s order were perused. In the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee’s written submissions and the explanation is reproduced by the ld. CIT(A). There cannot be any dispute that the assessee has not been given any opportunity of being heard before making any addition by the AO and also the ld CIT(A) has not considered the explanation of the assessee, which is reproduced in the order of the ld CIT(A) in right perspective. Therefore, the whole case requires examination of the facts afresh. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO who will decide the issue de novo, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →