PRIYADARSHANI CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3760/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 February 2024AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the Ld. CIT(A) had provided opportunities on several occasions, the assessee could not appear or utilize them. However, considering the totality of facts, the submissions of the Ld. AR, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also perused the additional evidence furnished, finding that it went to the root of the matter, and therefore admitted it. These evidences were not available for verification at the time of the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored all the additional evidences and the issue in hand to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to file all the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and cooperate with the proceedings, while the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Priyadarshani Construction, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated September 21, 2023, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee contended that the NFAC order was passed ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice, as notices of hearing were received by a previous authorized representative who failed to inform the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was precluded from participating in the appellate proceedings. The impugned order upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of Rs. 30,00,000/- and under Section 69A of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The assessee also filed additional evidence and prayed for its admission and remittance to the NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21/09/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the basic principle of natural justice and audi alteram partem, as the appellant was allegedly never informed about the hearing before the NFAC by the previous authorized representative? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice). 2. Whether all emails of notice of hearing were received by the previous authorized representative who never informed the appellant, consequently precluding the appellant from participating in appellate proceedings? (Question of fact, concerning communication and representation). 3. Whether the additions made under Section 68 of the Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/-, and under Section 69A of the Act, 1961, on account of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/-, are to be upheld? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of additions). Assessee's contentions: The impugned order was passed ex-parte without adequate opportunity of being heard. The previous authorized representative failed to inform the assessee about the hearings. Additional evidence, which goes to the root of the matter, should be admitted and the case remitted to the Ld. CIT(A) for examination. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR had no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Roshan Ochani
For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Pronounced: 29.02.2024

Date of conclusion of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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).

4.

Ld. DR has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th February, 2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →