Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer added Rs.6,20,000/- to the assessee's income, alleging bogus unsecured loans. This addition was initially upheld by the CIT(Appeals). However, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the AO made a similar addition, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not comply with hearing notices, the CIT(Appeals) failed to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, considering the facts and for substantial justice, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2009-10.
Despite sending notice for the date of hearing on 22.08.2024 at the address mentioned in Form-36, the Assessee neither
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 14.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.6,20,000/- @ 4% of the alleged transaction of bogus unsecured loans and added the same in the income of the Assessee. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the then Ld. CIT (Appeals)-54, who upheld the aforesaid addition vide order dated 14.05.2018.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid order dated 14.05.2018 before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 29.09.2021 restored the matter back to the AO for adjudication afresh.
The AO vide assessment order dated 15.12.2022 again made the similar addition, against which the Assessee again preferred appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 22.12.2023 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee ; consequently upholding the addition.
The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the impugned order before the Tribunal.
Having heard the Ld. DR and given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we observe that the Ld. Commissioner issued two notices for the dates of hearing on 08.12.2023 and 20.12.2023 which remained un-complied with and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency. However, it is a fact that the Ld. Commissioner failed to decide the appeal of the Assessee on merits, specifically in the absence of relevant M/s. Capiqal Consultancy Private Limited reply/submissions and documents and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality; for just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2024.