Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an ex parte order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2009-10. The assessee had applied for condoning a one-day delay in filing the appeal, which was allowed. The AO had reopened the case based on escaped income and made an addition under Section 68 for share capital/premium/call money.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant and failed to provide documentary evidence before the CIT(A). However, considering the request for one more opportunity to present the case and file documentary evidence, the Tribunal decided to remand the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case and submit documentary evidence before the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 148, 143(3), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the ex parte order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2009-10.
The assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay of one day in filing the present appeal. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the said delay as there being a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. Delay condoned.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
(A.Y.2009-10) Sunstar Mercantile Company Ltd. vs. ITO 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not commenting on validity of reopening of assessment.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad-in-law.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions made by the ld. A.O. without providing sufficient opportunities of being heard and without considering the submission made by the appellant company during the course of appellate proceedings.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not commenting on the fact that an opportunity to cross examination has not been awarded to the appellant.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,43,21,000/- by treating the share application/share premium/call money as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- Rs.1,02,96,300/-
The brief facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of textile products and filed its return of income on 30.09.2009, declaring Nil income. The ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) reopened the assessee’s case for the reason that income to the tune of Rs.397.25 lacs had escaped assessment and hence, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the said notice the assessee had filed the relevant details as called for. The ld. A.O. then passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2015, thereby determining the total income at Rs.3,43,21,000/- by making an addition u/s. 68 of the Act on account of ‘share capital/share premium/call money’.
The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order.
The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31.08.2023, upheld the order of the ld.A.O. for the assessee has failed to furnish neither the written submission nor any documentary genuineness of the transaction.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority but has been non compliant and has failed to corroborate its claim by any supporting documentary evidence during the first appellate proceeding.
The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A) and had proposed to file documentary evidences in support of the assessee’s claim.
The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee was given several opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) which was not availed by the assessee.
On the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority. We, therefore, remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with the direction that the assessee should comply with the proceedings without any undue delay on its side and to furnish all relevant documents in support of its submission of the assessee and in accordance with the law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.