NISHU AGRICO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 18(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4571/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 October 2021AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without independent findings and without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) confirmed additions made by the AO regarding disallowance of purchases and additions on account of sundry creditors.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the additions made by the AO were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. AMIT SHUKLA

For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT
Hearing: 12/10/2021Pronounced: 12/10/2021

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed towards the order of the CIT(A)-6, Delhi dated 09.08.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

“1. Action of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal- 7 in passing Ex-Parte Order without giving opportunity of being heard is unjust, illegal arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

Action of the CITA in confirming the addition made by the ITO in making disallowances of 20% of total purchase( 20% of purchase of Rs 14,69,54,4852/- i.e 29,39,08,970/- ) without considering the material on record is unjust, illegal arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Action of the CITA in confirming the addition made by the ITO U/S 68 of I T Act on Sundry Creditors amounting to Rs.46,60,66,649/- is unjust, illegal arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3.

None attended on behalf of the assessee.

4.

The DR was heard at length. Case record accordingly perused.

5.

A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) show that the order has been framed exparte though there is reference to the issue of notice but we find that the first appellate authority has not given any independent findings while confirming the disallowance / additions made by the AO.

6.

In the interest of justice and fair play we restore this appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh considering the merits of the case and after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

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

8.

Decision announced in the open court in the presence of Sr DR on 12.10.2021.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →