M/S LAM HOLDING P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal was satisfied with the assessee's reasons for non-participation in the lower proceedings and decided to grant one more opportunity. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return declaring a loss, but the AO invoked Section 147 and made an addition of Rs. 35 lac due to non-production of details regarding accommodation entries. The assessee remained unrepresented before the CIT(A), who upheld the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present its case before the AO and CIT(A), and if the ex parte order was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) on 18.1.2016 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09.
The assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs.9,553/-. The AO invoked the provisions of section 147. The assessee did not produce the AO in respect of certain accommodation entries allegedly received by the assessee. This led to the passing of order u/s 144, making an addition of Rs.35 lac. The assessee remained unrepresented before the ld. CIT(A) and, eventually, the addition of Rs.35 lac made u/s 68 of the Act was upheld. The assessee is aggrieved against the impugned order.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It can be seen that the assessment order has been passed u/s 144 due to non-production of the relevant books of account before the AO. Thereafter, the assessee also remained unrepresented before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR explained the reasons for non participation in the proceedings before the authorities below. I am satisfied with such reasons.
In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would meet adequately if one more opportunity is given to the assesssee to present its case before the AO. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for deciding this issue afresh as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that if the assessee fails to extend proper co-operation during 2
AO will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced in the open court on 28.09.2016.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
