BSM DEVELOPERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. Additions were made by the AO on account of differences in contract receipts and claimed depreciation. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance and non-appearance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities before the CIT(A) but failed to appear or submit responses. There was a discrepancy in the email communication regarding representation. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and confirming additions without considering reconciliation.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 144B, 26AS
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 16.01.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 66,94,367/- by not considering the reconciliation of such difference in the contract receipt declared by the assessee and that appearing in Form No. 26AS submitted to the AO vide reply dt. 17.04.2021.
The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 4. Necessary cost to be awarded to the assessee.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee partnership firm filed its return of income on 25-08-2018 declaring total income at Rs. 27,49,760/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny with a specific reason assigned is “Verification of the contract receipts/fees. The assessment of the assessee was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act after making addition of Rs. 66, 94,367/- on account of difference in receipts declared by the assessee vis-a-vis shown in Form No. 26AS and Rs. 99,034/- on account of depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved with this order preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non compliance/ non appearance. The assessee being further aggrieved with this order of the Ld. CIT (A) preferred the present appeal before us.
We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that vide Para 4 of the Ld. CIT (A)’s order total four opportunities were given to the assessee but either they seek an adjournment or there was no response filed by the assessee.
S. No. Date of issue Date of compliance Remarks fixed
20.11.2023 27.11.2023 Appellant sought an adjournment vide letter dated: 27.11.2023
29.11.2023 14.12.2023 No response or submission received
15.12.2023 22.12.2023 Appellant sought an adjournment vide letter dated: 27.11.2023
28.12.2023 12.01.2024 No response or submission received
It is observed that on two occasions the assessee filed adjournment letter vide serial no. 1 & 3 mentioned (supra), but still no response ultimately was filed by the assessee. We have gone through the submissions of the assessee on this issue, wherein it is claimed that all the notices were issued on the email-id of the regular consultant of the assessee at guptapeekay@yahoo.com, whereas in form no. 35, it was categorically mentioned that M/s. Kalani & Co. is representing the matter and in column 17 of the form email id of the firm M/s. Kalani & Co. was there, i.e. anuhal@kalanico.com.
5 The adjournments were filed by the P.K. Gupta & Co., i.e. regular consultant of the assessee and were not in the knowledge of the assessee or his appeal consultant, i.e. M/s. Kalani & Co. We have gone through the documents filed before us though paper book containing complete information relevant to the matter, but as the same were not there on the records of the first appellate authority, hence not considered. In view of this we restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh hearing after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be vigilant enough and participate actively in the proceedings before the authority without seeking any adjournment.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of November 2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 28/11/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. आयकर आयु� CIT 3. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER, //True Copy//
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Jaipur
Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on PC on 28.11.2024 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author 28.11.2024 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second JM/AM Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date of Dispatch of order
