SMT. PUSHPA RANI KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 917/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2017AY 2007-086 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, restored the matters to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessees to substantiate their cases. The assessees were directed to appear without adjournment.

What were the facts?

Following a search operation, assessments were completed making various additions. The assessees failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, leading to dismissal of their appeals. The assessees appealed to the ITAT, citing illness as a reason for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether a final opportunity should be granted to the assessees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “I”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT-DR

O R D E R Per Bench : The above batch of appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the Separate orders dated 30th November, 2015 of the CIT(A)- 25, New Delhi relating to different assessment years as mentioned above. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that consequent to search conducted in the Aerens Group of cases on 17.08.2017 search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were conducted in the case of the above two assessees on 10th Feb. 2012. The AO completed the assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) on 27th March 2014 in the above cases by making various additions. The income so assessed for different assessment years are as under :

S.N0. Name A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. A.Y. 1. 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2. Pushpa 32,18,110/- 14,75,000/- 15,00,000/- ---------- 16,00,000/- ----- Rani Kukreja 3. Om --------- ----------- ---------- 97,90,280/- 27,64,990/- 20,67,500/- Prakash Kukeraja

4.

The above assessees filed appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the various additions made by the AO. However, due to non-appearance before the CIT(A) despite opportunities granted, the CIT(A), applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N.Bhatacharya reported in 118 ITR 461 held that the assessees are not interested in prosecution of the appeals filed by them and, therefore, the appeals deserve to be dismissed at the very outset. So far as the merit of the cases is concerned, he also decided the same against the assessees by observing that the assessees did not make proper compliance during the assessment proceedings as well as during appeal proceedings and therefore, the AO was fully justified in making the additions. He accordingly dismissed the above appeals filed before him.

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the above assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessees are verymuch interested in prosecuting the appeals. Due to the illness of Shri Om Prakash Kukreja, there was no proper compliance before the AO as well as before CIT(A). He submitted that in the interest of justice the assessees should be given one final opportunity to substantiate their respective cases.

7.

Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Referring to the order of the CIT(A), she drew the attention of the bench to the numerous opportunities granted to the assessees to substantiate their cases. She submitted that the appeals filed by the assessees should be dismissed.

8.

We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us.

We find the assessees did not appear before the CIT(A) for which he passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeals of the assessees both on technical ground as well as on merit. It is an admitted fact that there was no appearance by the assessees before the IT(A) despite opportunities granted. However, Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the above matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the respective assessees to substantiate their case. The assessees are also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) without seeking adjournment and substantiate his / her case failing which the CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the issue as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The above appeals filed by the respective assessees are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

In the result all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 21.09.2017.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →