Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE
Date of conclusion of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.09.2023 for the A.Y.2011-12.
(A.Y: 2011-12) Priyadarshani Construction 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. THAT, the impugned order dated 21/09/2023 issued u/s. 250 is passed against the basic principle of natural justice and audi alteram partem, since appellant was never informed about hearing before NFCA by previous authorised presentative.
THAT, all the emails of notice hearing were received by previous authorised representative, who never informed appellant about hearing, consequently appellant was precluded from participating in appellate proceedings.
THAT, in consequence of impugned order dated 21/09/2023 intrinsically following additions were upheld by Id. NFAC. a. Addition u/s. 68 of the Act, 1961 due to erroneous submission of confirmation during the course of assessment proceedings amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-. b. Addition u/s. 69A of the Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loan amounting to Rs.20,00,000/-.
4. THAT, above mentioned ground are without prejudice to each other and appellant craves leaves to add, amend, alter, delete, modify any of the grounds as mentioned above.”
3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice relevant facts of the case and filed additional evidences and prayed for admission of additional evidences. Ld.AR of the assessee prayed that these additional evidences go to the root of the matter and the same may be admitted and remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for examination. Further, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance
(A.Y: 2011-12) Priyadarshani Construction made by the Assessing Officer, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
Ld. DR has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, on a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear or utilized the opportunities. Considering the totality of facts and submissions of the Ld. AR and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard.
Further, on a perusal of the additional evidences furnished before us, we are of the view that these evidences go to the root of the matter, accordingly the same are admitted. These evidences have to be examined by the Ld. CIT(A) as these evidences were not available for verification at the time of appellate proceedings. Thus, we restore all these additional evidences and the issue in hand to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee
(A.Y: 2011-12) Priyadarshani Construction may file all these evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim. Needless to say that the assessee shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments and the Ld.CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th February, 2024.