Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” Bench, Mumbai
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 30.10.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-41, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2009-10.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by registered post on an earlier occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.
We heard learned DR and perused the record. The assessee is a civil contractor. The Revenue received information that the assessee has been inflating purchases by obtaining bogus bills from hawala parties. Hence, the Assessing Officer reopened assessment of the year under consideration on noticing that the assessee has purchased material to the tune of ` 22.03 lakhs from one of the hawala parties named M/s. Deep Traders. In the reopened assessment the Assessing Officer disallowed purchase claim of ` 22.03 lakhs referred above. Though the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A), yet it did not appear before the learned CIT(A). Hence, the first appellate authority passed an ex-parte order and sustained the addition to the extent of 30% of the value of bogus purchases and accordingly granted relief to the extent of 70%. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.
In the grounds of appeal the assessee is challenging the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A). Besides the above, the assessee has stated that it has written back the amount payable to M/s. Deep Traders in A.Y. 2012-13 and offered the same to tax in that year.
5. We noticed that the assessee is bringing new fact on record, which could not have been considered by both the tax authorities at the time of framing of their orders. Under these facts, we are of the view that the issue agitated by the assessee requires fresh examination. Since the learned CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 01.8.2018.