M/S. MIQ FOODS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1997/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 December 2021AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, following a coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed additions made by the AO on account of old unsecured loans and bank deposits, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the facts were identical to a previous assessment year where the issue was restored to the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO made additions without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming these additions and dismissing the request for additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN

Hearing: 15/12/2021Pronounced: 15/12/2021

This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Meerut dated 15.03.2017 for A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

1.

That the A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-, which was old unsecured loan, however, in his order A.O. has mentioned that it is a fresh unsecured loan. Therefore, order passed by A.O. is erroneous and against the facts and CIT(A) has not justified to confirmed the same.

2. That the A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs. 7,80,000/- and Rs. 18,38,000/- on account of bank deposits treated as unexplained and CIT(A) is in error in confirming the same.

3.

That the penalty proceeding U/s 271(1)(c) initiated by A.O., is in routine and mechanical manner.

4. That the assessee has right to add/delete or modify any grounds during the appeal proceeding.

3. At the very outset the counsel for the assessee stated that on identical set of facts the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y.2012-13 has restored the issue to the files of the A.O. It is the say of the Counsel that facts for the year under consideration are identical and prayed for the similar directions.

4.

We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Counsel. This Tribunal in order dated 16.01.2019 had considered similar issues and held as under :- “6. It appears that AO has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee rather proceeded to hold that mere copies of ledger accounts, bank statements of the lenders of the unsecured loan, trade creditors, share application money and share genuineness of the transactions. AO has neither himself procured the presence of the trade creditors, lenders of unsecured loans and share applicants nor directed the assessee to produce them rather proceeded to make the assessment u/s 144 of the Act in haste.

7. Moreover, addition of Rs.9,88,00,000/- does not pertain to year under assessment. Even, Id. CIT (A) has not provided an opportunity of being heard to the assessee who has sought to lead additional evidence under Rule 46 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 but proceeded to dismiss application for additional evidence. So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter is required to be restored back to the AO to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.”

5.

Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra) we direct accordingly.

6.

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

7.

Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both representatives on 15.12.2021.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →