What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the evidence and decided the appeal accordingly. For the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without admitting additional evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 75,98,465/- representing estimated profits. The assessment was framed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without admitting additional evidence and confirming the addition. Whether the ex-parte assessment order was justified.

Kalpeshwara Builders &… vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi, C.A

Hearing: 23/10/2024Pronounced: 23/10/2024

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 31/03/2024 passed by NFAC [hereinafter ‘ld. CIT(A)], Delhi pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without admitting the additional evidence and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.75,98,465/-representing alleged estimated profits @5% of the closing value of work in progress.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 08/12/2019 wherein the returned Nil income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.4,43,86,400/-.

The ex-parte assessment was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee furnished certain evidence which were not accepted by the ld. CIT(A) who was of the firm belief that the assessee without filing any application for the admission of additional evidence relied upon the evidence. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed and the additions made by the AO were sustained.

We have given a thoughtful consideration the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the assessee did not avail the opportunity given by the AO and the AO, to avoid the period of limitation passed the assessment order ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. It is equally true that the assessee before the ld. First Appellate Authority has furnished documentary evidence in support of its appeal, but the same were not accepted by the ld. CIT(A) on the technical ground that no proper application was made by the assessee.

We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the evidence and decided the appeal accordingly. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to attend the assessment proceedings and comply with the queries and the AO is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 23rd October, 2024 at Mumbai. (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 23/10/2024 *SC SMPS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयुक्त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)- 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गार्ड फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ITAT, Mumbai

KALPESHWARA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,THANE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KALYAN

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments