M/S. NEW INDIA CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2094/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 January 2017AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard after the CIT(A) failed to appear due to the Chartered Accountant's non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee returned a loss but showed book profit under section 115JB. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 32,16,285/- by disallowing expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear for hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, despite engaging a representative, is sustainable. Whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 10.11.2016Pronounced: 12.01.2017

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 26.02.2016 of CIT(A)-20, New Delhi pertaining to 2008–09 assessment year on various grounds. Since the parties were heard only in respect to the issue arising in Ground No. 1, the same is reproduced hereunder:-

1.

“The order of the Learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on the facts of the case. The proceedings u/s 143(3) was illegal and not according to Act.”

2.

The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee returned a loss income of Rs.4,17,875/- and showed book profit of Rs.1,14,02,558/- under section 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961. The return was processed under section 143(1) and thereafter picked up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer in the scrutiny proceedings made an addition by way of a disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.32,16,285/-.

3.

Aggrieved by this, the assessee came in appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

Since despite opportunity, the assessee failed to appear for hearing on 07/09/2015; 20/08/2015; 07/01/2016 and finally on 19/01/2016, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions.

4.

Aggrieved by this, the assessee is an appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

The Ld. AR, Sh. Rohit Garg, CA appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the Chartered Accountant engaged by the assessee Sh. Harish Goel for some reason failed to appear as a result of which the additions made by the Assessing Officer on wrong facts have been sustained. In these circumstances, it was his limited prayer that the issues I.T.A .No.-2094/Del/2016 New India City Developers P.Ltd. vs ITO

Page 2 of 2 may be remanded to the CIT(A) and he gave his oral undertaking that the assessee shall participate in the proceedings as non participation before the CIT(A) was not made known to the assessee. The said prayer was not objected to by the Ld. Sr. DR. Accordingly, in the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances wherein despite engaging a counsel to represent it the assessee remained unrepresented on account of no fault of its own resulting in the passing of the impugned order ex-parte. Accordingly, accepting the oral undertaking given by the Ld. AR, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

6.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes The order is pronounced in the open court on 12th of January 2017. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

I.T.A .No.-2094/Del/2016 New India City Developers P.Ltd. vs ITO

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →