Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 23.01.2015 of CIT(A)-7, Delhi pertaining to 2006–07 assessment year on various grounds.
However, at the time of hearing, an adjournment petition was moved on behalf of assessee seeking time on the grounds that the counsel was suffering from fever. No one was present in support of the application moved. The appeal was passed over. In the second round also the position remained the same. Considering the fact that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee, the Ld. Sr.DR was required to address the departmental stand. Accordingly, after considering the material available on reocrd and the submission of the Ld.Sr.DR , the adjournment application was rejected.
The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee in the year under consideration returned a loss income of Rs.42,479/-. The said return was picked up for scrutiny wherein the declared loss was reduced to Rs.31,860/-. Subsequently on the basis of receipt of information from the DIT(investigation) that the assessee, Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain along with his brother Sh.Virendra Jain were found to be operating multiple accounts in various branches to plough back unaccounted black money for the purposes of business of personal needs such as I.T.A .No.-2188/Del/2015 Rewti Raman Developers P.Ltd. vs ITO
Page 2 of 3 purchase of assets etc in the form of gifts, share application money, loans etc the assessments were opened. The assessee was put to notice that from the following 6 firms, the assessee had taken accommodation entries operated by the said Brothers:-
Amount of Cheque/ Date of Bank details Name of company used for supposed DD/PO cheque/DD providing accommodation entry accommodation no. entry (Rs.) 4,00,000 063476 04.01.2006 Bank of India KARISHMA INDUSTRIES LTD. 3,00,000 979863 04.01.2006 Bank of India PELICON FINANCE & LEASE LTD. 3,00,000 107601 04.01.2006 Bank of India HILLRIDGE INVESTMENTS LTD. 3,00,000 004269 06.01.2006 UTI Bank PARISHUDH FINANCE CO.PVT.LTD. 2,00,000 004271 UTI Bank PARISHUDH FINANCE CO.PVT.LTD. 3,00,000 004272 UTI Bank VOGUE LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. 3.1. In the absence of any explanation of the assessee, addition of the said amount was made in the hands of the assessee.
The additions were challenged in appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A). The assessee filed fresh evidences before the CIT(A) which were remanded to the AO and a Remand Report was obtained. The said Report was confronted to the assessee inasmuch as it was sent to the assessee however, the assessee failed to appear and in fact the last notice as per Para 7.7 of the impugned order came back with a comment “No such person”.
Considering the fact that the grievance of the assessee still persists as effective opportunity of being heard has not been provided the impugned order is set aside. The issues are restored back to the CIT(A) with a direction to confront the Remand Report to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is made clear that it is hoped that the opportunity so provided to the assessee is utilized fully and fairly as failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of material available on I.T.A .No.-2188/Del/2015 Rewti Raman Developers P.Ltd. vs ITO
Page 3 of 3 record. The said order was pronounced in the open Court and the adjournment application was rejected holding “Rejected and Restored to the CIT(A)”. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 20th of December, 2016. 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.-2188/Del/2015 Rewti Raman Developers P.Ltd. vs ITO