Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM &
ITO WD-2(3), R. S. Petrochem, I.T. Officer Mohan R. S. Complex, Opp- बिधम/ Plaza, Waylenagar, Ailsinghani Chambers, Khadakpada, Kalyan- KalyanAmbernath Road, Vs. Ulhasnagar, Dombivali, Mumbai-421003 Mumbai-421301 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAEFR2670R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. N. Hemlatha, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/04/2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 04/05/2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The presentAppeals filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) – 3, Thane, dated 24.10.16 for AY 2009-10.
R. S. Petrochem, 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a dealer in petroleum products. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the Sales tax Department that a party M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation from whom the assessee had made purchases to the tune of Rs. 41,35,000/- was involved in providing hawala entries and the assessee was one of the beneficiaries. After providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the order of assessee u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act was passed on 18.03.15, thereby making additions u/s 69C of the I.T. Act.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts while dismissing appeal without granting proper opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted by Ld. AR that R. S. Petrochem, Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases from so called hawala dealers without verifying the case records.
On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities and submitted that the assessee had intentionally not appeared before Ld. CIT(A) and the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) needs no interference.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as orders passed by revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and even during the appellate proceedings, in response to notice u/s 250 of the Act, the assessee remained non-cooperative. In this respect, Ld. CIT(A) in para no. 3.0 has mentioned the dates and remarks for non- appearance/non-cooperation on the part of assessee. Therefore, in the absence of assessee or his representative, the Ld. CIT(A)
R. S. Petrochem, confirmed the order of AO by holding that assessee has nothing to offer any explanation in support of his grounds of appeal.
Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met only, when we provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for contesting the appeal on merits. In our view, if the assessee is allowed to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) then in that eventuality, no prejudice would be caused to the interest of revenue as legitimate taxes due on the assessee’s correct income will be adjudicated. Whereas, if the contrary view is taken then in that eventuality the assessee may be put to great hardship and difficulty. Therefore, keeping in view the above discussion, we set aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case and thereafter pass afresh order on all the grounds raised by the assessee. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall R. S. Petrochem, in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. Resultantly the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the net result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th May, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. Baskaran) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Memberन्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 04.05.2018 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 4. 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,