Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.
Both these appeals have been preferred by the assessee and the relevant assessment years are 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in trading of paints and hardware in a proprietary-ship concern under the name ,922/Del/2016 Om Prakash Kukreja vs. ACIT and style of M/s. Surya Paints & Hardware Store. The sales in both the assessment years were above the limits prescribed u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961(herein after called “the Act”). The AO, however, proceeded to estimate the sales for assessment year 2007-08 by applying the net profit rate of 5% and estimated the business income at Rs. 6,50,000/-. For assessment year 2008-09, the income was estimated by applying the net profit rate of 5% and estimating the business income at Rs. 6,00,000/-.
2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority by raising the preliminary ground that the sales had been estimated without any basis and without considering the duly audited accounts and that treatment of the case as ‘no accounts case’ was arbitrary and unlawful. However, the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for both the years by noting that the assessee had not made any compliance either before the AO or before him during the appellate proceedings and only adjournments were sought from time to time. The Ld. CIT (A) was of the opinion that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals and that the appeals deserved to be dismissed at the very outset. On merits also, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the observations of the AO that the assessee had not produced the ,922/Del/2016 Om Prakash Kukreja vs. ACIT books of accounts and, therefore, the AO had no option but to estimate the income of the assessee.
2.2 Now, aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT and has challenged the dismissal of the appeals by the Ld. CIT (A).
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had not given proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and, therefore, the assessee should be provided with another opportunity to explain the facts and produce the relevant documents.
Ld. CIT DR opposed the prayer of the Ld. authorised representative and submitted that the assessee had not availed the various opportunities given by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT (A) and it was very much possible that the assessee would not again do so, given his track record, if the matter is restored to the file of the lower authorities.
We have heard rival submissions and have perused the material on record. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee was given several opportunities during the course of appellate proceedings but no compliance was made and only adjournments were sought. The Ld. CIT (A) has mentioned the proceedings of the order sheet wherein ,922/Del/2016 Om Prakash Kukreja vs. ACIT the assessee was required to furnish various documents in connection with the appellate proceedings. As per the order of the Ld. CIT (A) for assessment year 2007-08, it is seen that the assessee kept on seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other even after 19 months of having filed the appeal. Similar observations have been made by the Ld. CIT (A) in the impugned order for assessment year 2008-09.
5.1 We find that the conduct of the assessee in pursuing the matters both before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT (A) has been of utmost recklessness and carelessness. Even during the proceedings before us, the Ld. Authorised representative could not state, with ample evidence, the reason for non compliance before both the lower authorities. We express our displeasure at the conduct of the assessee as it shows lack of seriousness on the part of the assessee. However, considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore both the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT (A) without seeking any adjournment failing which the Ld. CIT (A) will be at liberty to proceed with the adjudication as per law. ,922/Del/2016 Om Prakash Kukreja vs. ACIT
In the final result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.11.2017.