Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24/11/2015 of the CIT(A)-Dehradun relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.
An adjournment application was filed seeking adjournment of the case. However, after going through the order of the CIT(A), which is an ex-parte one, the application for adjournment was rejected and the appeal was taken up for hearing.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 26th September, 2012 on a total income of Rs.28,96,360/-. The A.O completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.48,09,260/- by making various additions. It may be pertinent to mention here that the A.O hs passed the order u/s 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27th March 2015 since there was no proper compliance. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). However, due to non-appearance by the assessee before the CIT(A) he passed the order ex-parte giving part relief to the assessee.
4. Aggrieved with such order to CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:-
That the assessment proceedings, being barred by limitation, are liable to be quashed, because the notice u/s 143(2) had not been served upon the assessee within the prescribed time.
2. That the entire additions /disallowances are liable to be deleted, because the same were not in accordance with the instructions/guidelines issued by the Hon'ble CBDT and/or because the Id. A.O. had exceeded his jurisdiction / powers by making additions/disallowances, which were not covered by the reasons mentioned in CASS.
3. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id CIT(A) had erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.4,15,018/-, which was made by the !d A.O. on a/c of alleged difference in the account of share money.
4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id CIT(A) had erred in upholding the Id A.O.'s action of rejecting the books of account/ book results declared by the assessee u/s 145(3) and adopting net profit rate of 1.3%.
5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id CIT(A) had erred in not deleting the entire addition of Rs. 13,00,699/-. Without prejudice, the addition sustained by the Id CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.2,54,017/-, is highly excessive.
That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id CIT(A) had erred in not deleting the addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,97,178/-, which was made by the Id A.O. on a/c of non deduction of tax at source .”
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to mention here that due to non appearance before the CIT(A) despite sufficient opportunities, he passed the order ex-parte on merit and gave part relief to the assessee. However, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) and not to seek adjournment under any pretext. The CIT(A) shall decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself, i.e. on 19th September, 2017.