Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench“SMC”, New Delhi
Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI
PER N.K. SAINI, A.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.9.2016 of the learned CIT(A)-35 New Delhi. 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 disposed of by hearing the learned Sr. DR on merit. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-
1. That the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is bad in law and on fact.
2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in disallowing and adding to the total income Rs.85,777, on the ground that the appellant has borne expenditure at an estimated rate of 0.5% of average investment of Rs.1,71,55,360 in equity shares as per provision of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant in the relevant previous year has not earned any exempt income.
3. That the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in disallowing and adding to the total income Rs.12,53,558, on the ground that the depreciation (Rs.6,72,318) claimed and interest on car loan (Rs.5,81,240) incurred on Mercedes Car cannot be allowed for the reason that the Mercedes Car do not belong to the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that the Mercedes Car was transferred to the appellant during the relevant previous year.
That the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in adding to the total income Rs.16,92,850, made on the ground that sundry creditor, namely, M/s Shree Steel (Rs.8,40,350) and M/s Shyam Enterprises (Rs.8,52,500) were unverified, without giving the appellant sufficient opportunity to place its contentions.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its revised return on 27.9.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 9,79,110/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 40,13,265/- by making the following additions.
Disallowance of Interest on TDS 1,970/- 2. Disallowance U/s 14A read with Rule 8D 85,777/- 3. Disallowance of expenses on Fixed 12,53,558/- Assets not pertaining to assessee company 4. Addition U/s 68-Unverified Sundry 16,92,850/- Creditors
Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) who passed the ex parte order and confirmed the additions made by the AO. Now, the assessee is in appeal.
4. The learned Sr. DR supported the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A), therefore the appeal was decided ex parte.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned Sr. DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the learned CIT(A) although mentioned that the notice was issued on 9.9.2016 for hearing of the case on 16.9.2016 but none appeared. However, it is not brought on record to substantiate that the said notice was served upon the assessee. It is also noticed that the assessee in the statement of facts attached with appeal memo had stated as under:- Due to some unfortunate reasons, the appellant could not appear before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Due to non-appearance by the appellant, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) passed an ex-parte order whereby the disallowance and additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer was upheld and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per maxim “Audi Alteram Partem”. In the present case, it is not brought on record that the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh, in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 20.10.2017.