Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
The captioned appeal by Assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 assails the ex-parte order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 29/09/2016 qua confirmation of certain additions. The assessee, in its grounds of appeal
, has contested the impugned order on legal grounds as well as on merits since the impugned order is an ex-parte order.
2. Briefly stated, the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in trading & manufacturing of pharmaceuticals was assessed u/s 143(3) for impugned AY on 25/03/2014 at Rs.4,94,99,446/- as against ‘Nil’ return filed by the assessee on 29/09/2012. Consequent to search operations on 06/03/2012 on Elder Group of Companies, certain documents pertaining to assessee were found and therefore, the assessment of impugned AY was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3). The assessee, inter-alia, suffered additions of Rs.8 crores on account of commission and interest and disallowance of Rs.65,19,361/- u/s 14A. Both these additions are the subject matter of this appeal.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 29/09/2016. The assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A) to defend his case despite being provided with several opportunities of being heard. The same resulted into confirmation of additions ex-parte qua the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Elder Health Care Limited Assessment Year 2012-13 4. The Ld. Representative for assessee [AR], at the outset, assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee stood fair chance of contesting the addition and therefore, in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the issues before Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.
Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the same by drawing our attention to the fact that the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunities of being heard on various occasions but every time adjournment was sought and no efforts were made to represent the case before first appellate authority and therefore, the appeal has rightly been decided against the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. We concur with the stand of Ld. DR that the assessee failed to avail the several opportunities being provided to him by Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee did not make any efforts to pursue the same. However, at the same time, it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the effected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, we see no harm in providing another opportunity to the assessee to contest his claim before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is restored back to file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication with direction to assessee to Elder Health Care Limited Assessment Year 2012-13 substantiate his claim forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the matter on the basis of material available on record.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes on legal grounds. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th October, 2017.