K K TEX ENTERPRISES,BHIWANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5272/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2018AY 2004-054 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to appear before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances and wished to pursue the appeals on merit. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to provide an opportunity for a decision on merit.

What were the facts?

A search and seizure action was conducted, leading to additions by the AO for unaccounted income and inflated labour charges. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was based on the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte should be set aside to allow the assessee to present their case on merit.

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.R
For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha, D.R
Hearing: 01.01.2018Pronounced: 30.01.2018

Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the common order dated 16.06.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06.

2.

The short facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 12/07/2007. The return of income has been filed along with Computation of Income on 02/05/2008 declaring total income at Rs.22,078/ -. The assessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 30-12-2009 determining total income at Rs.10,49,770/-. The following additions have been made by the (a) Unaccounted income Rs. 9,64,185/- (b) Inflation of labour charges Rs. 63,510/- Total addition Rs. 10,27,695/-

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made on account of the unaccounted income determined by the AO and disallowance on account of job charges. Further, the assessee preferred an appeal to the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) who have deleted the addition made on account of the unaccounted income of Rs. 9,64,185/- and restored to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh in respect of inflation of labour charges. The AO has allowed an amount of Rs.3/- per meter towards labour charges which worked out to Rs.20,50,737/- and disallowed the balance amount of Rs.63,510/- out of total expenses of Rs.21,14,247/-.

3.

Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim of the assessee.

4.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee did not remain present before the Ld. CIT(A) and the order was passed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) and it is a common order for A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. The Ld. A.R. submitted that

5.

The Ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of hearing neither the assessee remained present nor any documentary evidence was submitted. Therefore, ex-parte order was passed. He further submitted that assessee was given several opportunities still he remained absent.

6.

Having heard both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that assessee due to unavoidable circumstances was unable to remain present before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee wanted to pursue these appeals on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, I allow both the appeals. Assessee is directed to remain present before the Ld. CIT(A) within two months from the receipt of this order. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide these appeals on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2018.

More judgments on Section 132

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →