Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Digihome Solutions Vs. Dy. Comm. Of Income Private Limited, 366, Tax, Ward 6(2)(3) Veer Savarkar Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028 Mumbai – 400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AACCD3082A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Haridas Bhat Respondent by : Manish Ajudiya Date of Hearing 04.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 20.09.2023 for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the CIT Appeals, erred in adjudicating the appeal without considering the submissions made and confirming the addition of Rs. 49,99,749/ of the Act which is bad at law.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO failed to appreciate that a) The assessee has made the submissions which are acknowledged by the CIT(A). b) The CIT(A) neither asked for any details nor remanded the case to the AO, ignoring the fact that the 143(3) order was passed U/s 144, by P a g e | Digihome Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Ward 6(2)(3) giving the reason that contracts and sales register were not submitted. c) Even if the addition is confirmed the Assessee had enough brought forward losses, which is ignored by the CIT(A) without any reasoning d) The additions are based on the gross income as per ITS/ 26AS and ignoring the fact that there will be some expenditure to earn the income.
3. The Appellant therefore prays that the assessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act may please be send back to the concerned AO to give proper opportunity to the Assessee. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, and / or amend the above grounds of appeal.”
Fact in brief is that as per AIR information it was revealed that assessee company had received an amount of Rs.3,74,343/- on account of turnover from services as per service tax return Rs.1,27,830/- on account of other interest u/s 194A and Rs.44,97,579/- on account of payment to contractor u/s 194C of the Act. Since, assessee has not filed return of income, therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment the AO has issued notices u/s 142(1) however, the assessee has not made any compliance. Due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee the assessing officer has computed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and the aforesaid total receipt of Rs.49,99,749/- was treated as assessee’s undisclosed income for the year under consideration.
The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee had not filed its return of income and assessee has not filed any detail such as contract notes, sale register etc, to substantiate its claim. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that sufficient opportunity were not granted by the assessing officer and the notices issued by the assessing officer were