Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT passed u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, dated 14.02.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: i) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT has erred in passing a revision order u/s 263 of I.T. Act without giving the appellant any opportunity of being heard and Ashtavinayak Steel P. Ltd. ITA no.2760/Mum./2014 without considering the relevant facts. The learned CIT has further erred in relying oil facts. ii) In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT has erred in passing an order u/s 263 of the I.T. Act without there being impropriety in the assessment order and the assessment order not being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. iii) The learned CIT has further erred in passing the impugned revision order Ws 263 merely oil basis of doubt, surmises and conjectures on a change of opinion in respect of t'acts and circumstances of the case. iv) The impugned revision order passed u/s 263 is perverse as relevant facts have not been appreciated by the CIT and he has relied oil facts. v) The impugned revision order has been passed oil basis of flimsy and whimsical grounds. iv) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, change or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal
. which are independent & without prejudice to each other.
3. In this case the learned Commissioner of income tax observed certain matters for which notice was issued with assessee. One of the issue related to discrepancy in confirmation of balance of loans. Differences were also Ashtavinayak Steel P. Ltd. ITA no.2760/Mum./2014 noticed in the classification thereof and certain other discrepancies were also noted in the loan accounts. It will also observed that issues relating to 40 A (2) (b) in respect of one of the parties was not examined by the assessing officer. It will also noted that the purchases remained to be verified. It was further noted that issues relating to verification of sundry creditors, reduction in share capital were also not attended. Several other discrepancies and matters were noted in which the learned Commissioner of income tax was of the opinion that the assessing officer has not examined However Ld. CIT-A noted that despite several notices nobody attended. Hence learned Commissioner of income tax concluded as under; “As no explanation has been received to the issues referred in show cause notice, there is no other option but to assume that assessee has nothing to say in this regard. I am considered opinion that the assessment order, in the light of the facts/deficiencies pointed out in para (i to x) above and in the context of the ratio of decisions cited above, is “erroneous” and “prejudicial” to the interst of the revenue”. I, therefore, set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act with a direction to the AO to redo the same afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The AO is directed to reframe the assessment order “denvo” in accordance with the provisions of the law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after verifying the issues raised above in paras 2 (i to x).”
Against above order assessee has appealed before the ITAT. We have heard the Ld. DR. It is noted that despite notices nobody is appearing on Ashtavinayak Steel P. Ltd. ITA no.2760/Mum./2014 behalf of the assessee. Today also when the case was called up nobody appeared. Hence we are proceeding to adjudicate the issue upon hearing the learned departmental representative and perusing the records.
We find that at the outset assessee has raised the ground that Ld. CIT has passed the order without giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. In this regard we find that the learned Commissioner of income tax in his order has duly noted that on several occasion notices were issued but nobody attended. Before us also despite several notices nobody has attended. Hence we do not find any cogency in this aspect of assessee submission that proper opportunity of being heard was not granted. As regards the merits of the order passed we find that learned Commissioner of income tax has raised relevant issues on which the assessing officer should have made enquiries, which are not emanating from the assessment order. Hence it was incumbent upon the assessee to prove that the assessing officer has duly examined these aspects. In absence of any responses from the assessee in our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the direction of learned Commissioner of income tax to the assessing officer to examine the issues denovo.
Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT.
Ashtavinayak Steel P. Ltd. ITA no.2760/Mum./2014 Hence we uphold the same. In the result this appeal by assessee stands dismissed.