Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order by NFAC for A.Y. 2012-13 was dismissed by NFAC without considering the merits. The assessee contended that the hearing notice was not properly served, violating principles of natural justice, and that several grounds of appeal were not adjudicated.
Held
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal 'in limine' without going into the merits of the case. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by NFAC was bad in law due to violation of natural justice and non-adjudication of grounds of appeal. Whether additions made under sections 68 and 69C and levy of interest under section 234B were justified.
Sections Cited
282, Rule 127, 147, 143(3), 148, 68, 69C, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
This appeal by the Assessee is preferred against the order dated 06.07.2023 by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in passing an ex-parte order dated 06/07/2023 as no notice of hearing dated
ITA No.-2503/Del/2023 M/s SD Propcon Pvt. Ltd. 09/06/2023 fixing the appeal for 26/06/2023 was served on the Appellant as specified under section 282 of I.T. Act read with Rule 127 of I.T. Rules thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Without prejudice to above, the ex-parte order dated 06/07/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as various grounds of appeal raised in Form 35 have not been adjudicated upon.
3. That the impugned reassessment order as passed u/s 147/143(3) of I.T Act by ITO, Ward 22(4), New Delhi (in short AO) is also bad in law as initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of I.T. Act is illegal.
4. That without prejudice to Ground No. 3 above, the impugned reassessment order as passed u/s 147/143(3) is also bad in law as the AO did not provide the necessary information/documents so as to enable the Appellant to file its objections against reasons as recorded/initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of I.T. Act thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and under the law in confirming/upholding the following additions aggregating to Rs.2,30,40,000: a) Rs.2,00,00,000 u/s 68 on account of advance received for purchase of property from Krad Securities Pvt. Ltd.. b) Rs. 10,00,000 u/s 68 on account of share capital received from SSJ Foods Ltd.. c) Rs.5,00,000 u/s 68 on account of share capital received from South Asia Impex Pvt. Ltd. d) Rs. 10,00,000 u/s 68 on account of share capital received from G.T. Comex Pvt. Ltd. e) Rs.5,40,000 u/s 68 on account of payment made to sundry creditor, M/s Apex Enterprises.
6. That the AO has erred on facts and under the law in making addition of Rs.3,45,600 uls 69C of LT. Act on account of commission allegedly paid @1.5% to entry operators outside the books of accounts for taking accommodation entries amounting to Rs.2,30,40,000.
7. That the levy of interest u/s 234B of Rs. 70,38,426 is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and without prejudice such interest as levied is very excessive
ITA No.-2503/Del/2023 M/s SD Propcon Pvt. Ltd.
That the Appellant reserves its right to add amend/modify the grounds of appeal.
2. At the very outset, the Counsel for the assessee stated that the appeal has been dismissed by NFAC ex-parte and prayed for the restoration of the appeal. The DR fairly conceded that the appeal has been dismissed ex-parte.
We have carefully considered the order of the NFAC. We find that the appeal was listed for hearing before NFAC as per chart mentioned at page 3 and 4 of the order. However, we find that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal in limine and without going into the merits of the case.
Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the files of the NFAC with the direction to decide afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01.01.2024