Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order for AY 2021-22. The AO made an addition of Rs.2,69,55,495/- on account of disallowance for counterfeit expenses. The assessee failed to provide necessary details and documents during the appellate proceedings despite multiple opportunities.
Held
The tribunal noted the assessee's casual and irresponsible conduct in failing to comply with notices and provide documentation. While the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal, the tribunal considered the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution for a just decision.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's non-compliance warrants a dismissal, or if the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B, 37
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, BENGALURU BENCH
Before: SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 1.1.2024, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2021-22.
M/s. Maniveera Structure Pvt. Ltd. 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) vide assessment order dated 20.12.2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act made the addition of Rs.2,69,55,495/- on account of disallowance qua payment of counterfeit expenses not allowable under provisions of section 37 of the Act and consequently added the same in the income of the Assessee.
The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who though afforded various opportunities to the Assessee, however, the Assessee failed to avail the same, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner by observing as under:
“That on the basis of the above facts, it is evident and clear that the Assessee is not interested in filing any details during the appellate proceedings and to avail the opportunity under the Principles of Natural Justice. No further opportunity was provided as the appellant had already been granted 5 opportunities which shows that the appellant is a habitual non compliant and had no regards for the statutory proceedings. It is also matter of record that on 1.3.2023 a channel of communication was enabled under intimation to the Assessee in this case. This means that Assessee also had additional opportunity to make any submission in support of his grounds of appeal even if there was no notice issued to the Assessee. It is further matter of record that the Assessee has not availed even this opportunity. Hence this appeal is being decided on the basis of the material available on record. In such situation, only conclusion can be drawn that the Assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal.
Ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol V/s. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 and in the case of CIT V/s. Multiplan India(P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del).
M/s. Maniveera Structure Pvt. Ltd.
The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. The Assessee before us submitted that the notices sent by the ld. Commissioner somehow went to the group e-mail which resulted in non-compliance. We observe that in the Form No.35 as well as in Form No.36, the Assessee has given the e-mail address as amaccounts@jainheights.com and there is no denial by the Assessee that notices were not sent to this e-mail address. The conduct of the Assessee seems to be casual and irresponsible. From Para No.2 of the assessment order also, it clearly reflects that the AO though granted various opportunities by sending at least 8 notices to the Assessee, however, the Assessee by replying in part, on one or two occasions, did not cooperate with the assessment proceedings and failed to file the relevant submissions/documents, therefore did not discharge its onus to substantiate its claim by providing cogent evidence and any satisfactory reply and in the absence of confirmation of transactions from the parties, the AO was constrained to make the addition under consideration which also reflects the non- cooperative attitude of the Assessee. However by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as issue in this case due to non- filling of proper submission/documents by the Assessee, remained to be adjudicated in its true spirit and right perspective and it is the mandate of the Article 265 of the Constitution of India that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law and therefore for the just decision of the case and for the ends of justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department. Suffice to say the ld. Commissioner shall grant reasonable opportunities to the Assessee to substantiate its case and in case of default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
M/s. Maniveera Structure Pvt. Ltd. We are also inclined to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices and co-operate with the appellate proceedings and file the relevant submissions/documents as would be essential/required before the ld. Commissioner and in case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus in the aforesaid terms, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly.
In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.