SNOWHITE APPARELS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1874/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2021AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, considering the ex parte order passed due to non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee company engaged in trading readymade garments filed its return of income. The CPC processed the return and made disallowances, including Rs. 2,76,860/- for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order sustaining the disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's PF contribution without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR
Hearing: 29.07.2021Pronounced: 29.07.2021

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Snowhite Apparels Ltd., Vs. DCIT, C-93, South Extension Part 2, CPC, New Delhi. Bangalore. PAN:AAACS3557P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, CA Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2021 ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 18th August, 2020 of the CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,76,860/- made by the AO on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution to PF.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading of readymade garments. It filed its return of income on 28th October, 2017 declaring the total income at Rs.8,26,280/-. The return of income was duly processed by CPC, Bangalore on 16th March, 2019 at an income of Rs.15,01,500/- by making various disallowances out of which the disallowance of Rs.2,78,860/- on account of late deposit of employee’s contribution to PF is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.

4. I find, against the intimation u/s 143(1) making the disallowance of Rs.6,75,221/-, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by sustaining the disallowance of Rs.6,75,221/- made by the CPC. Although there were two disallowances i.e., disallowance of Rs.2,76,860/- on account of late deposit of employee’s contribution to PF and Rs.3,98,361/- u/s 37 of the Act, the assessee has filed appeal against disallowance of Rs.2,76,860/- on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution to PF. I find, due to non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A), despite two opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, has sustained the addition. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →