Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-
1. That CIT(A) has not considered the fact that the business
of the assessee was closed due to the seal imposed by Syndicate Bank, Meerut Cantt. That the earlier counsel has not inform the date of hearing on 18-11-2011, hence order passed by CIT(A), Meerut confirming the order is bad in law.
2. That no notice U/s 143(2) was served upon the assessee.
Hence, entire assessment U/s 143(3) is bad in law and CIT(A) is in error in confirming the same.
3. That A.O. has not justified estimated net profit of the firm
of Rs. 69,97,667/- @ 5% of the gross turnover. The A.O. has not given any comparative case and CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit.
4. That A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs.
23,27,697/- as capital introduced by the partner's and CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit.
5. That A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs.
1,09,489/- U/s 43B of I.T. Act, 1961 and CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit.
That A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs.
5,58,600/- on account of interest on advances @ 12% an CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit.
7. That A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs.
1,73,307/- on account of advances to Devendra Singhal,
J.K Gupta and Shashi Kiran @ 12% and CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit.
That A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs.
4,00,000/- U/s 68 as unsecured loan and CIT(A) has no given any finding on merit.
That the assessee has right to add, delete or modify any grounds during the appeal proceeding.
Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that no notice u/s. 143(2) was served upon the assessee. He further stated that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity, hence, the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. He himself made a statement that he will appear before the Ld. CIT(A), as and when the Bench directed to do so.
On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We have gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities especially the impugned order and we find that ld. CIT(A) has issued the notice to the assessee, but the assessee did not attend the proceedings. For ready reference, we are reproducing the relevant para no. 2 to 4 of the impugned order as under:-
“2. This is a high demand appeal. It is observed from a study of the assessment order that the same was passed u/s. 143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. It is also observed that the assessee failed to appear on many occasions in response to notices issued by the AO.
During the appellate proceedings, compliance was fixed on 25.09.2014 in terms of notice u/s. 250 dated
26.8.2014. On this date, the AR of the appellant filed an adjournment application stating therein that he is not in a position to attend the hearing on 25.9.2014.
The case was adjourned for 18.11.2014. On this date, no compliance was made nor was any written communication received from the appellant.
From the above, it is evident that sufficient
opportunities of being heard have been allowed to the appellant. This also implies that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal for the reasons best known to him. Since sufficient opportunities of being heard have been given to the appellant, no further adjournment can be granted. Therefore, the appeal is disposed off on the basis of material on record.
4. Since the appellant has not furnished any written
explanation and / or detail against the additions made by the AO in his order u/s. 143(3), it is held that the AO was justified in making the additions. The same are hereby confirmed. Grounds of appeal are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
6. Keeping in view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that sufficient opportunity has not been given by the Ld. First Appellate Authority to the assessee for substantiating its claim before the ld. CIT(A) which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and against the principles of natural justice. I also note that on merit also Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on the issues in dispute, hence, we are of the view that in this case the issues in dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law. Accordingly, the issues in dispute are set aside and restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issues in dispute afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, as requested by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, the Assessee is directed through his Counsel to be present before the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.01.2017 at 10.00 AM and fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) and did not take any unnecessary adjournment and file all the necessary papers before him to substantiate his case.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13/12/2016.