M/S. SITA RAM CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. ITO, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1391/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 September 2017AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and unsustainable. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides sufficient evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order confirming the rejection of their books of accounts and adoption of an 8% net profit rate on gross receipts. The assessee argued the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and if the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak relating to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against facts and is bad

in law.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts by invoking

section 145 of the I.T. Act.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO in adopting Net Profit Rate of 8% on the gross

receipts of contract.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO in not deducting cost of material from the gross receipts amounting to Rs. 1,98,92,958/-.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deducting depreciation

claimed at Rs. 23,392/- from the taxable income.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground of appeal at the time of its hearing.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

During the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating its claim before him.

Secondly, he argued that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, he requested that issue in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and also direct him to pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that assessee has not produced the books of accounts and has not given any complete documentary evidence on the addition in dispute, therefore, he requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. We are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order which is non-speaking and hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. We also find that the assessee has not filed sufficient evidence for substantiating the claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, we direct the assessee to produce the relevant evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) for substantiating its case. Accordingly, we set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the same on merits, after appreciating the evidences produced by the assessee and also provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its case. However, the assessee is directed not to seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A) and fully cooperate in the speedy disposal of the Appeal.

6.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 18/9/2017.

More judgments on Section 145

All 1,584 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →