SURAMS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-1(2), JAIUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SH. SANDEP GOSAIN & DR. M. L. MEENA
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.09.2023 in respect of Assessment Year: 2021-22.
2 ITA No. 14/JPR/2024 Surams Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the
ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee by confirming
the addition of Rs.8,78,150/- made by the AO as unexplained income u/s
69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of commission income for providing
accommodation entries. He contended that the ld. CIT(A) has although
issued a notice but it has never been served upon the assessee to enable
him to make compliance before the first appellate authority. He pleaded
that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) without considering
the merits of the case, the certified documents filed before the AO, with the
support of the notorized affidavit (APB pg. no. 16) which are vital
documents for the verification of source of commission income and the
same are available on the Income Tax Portal. He pleaded that the order
may be set aside and restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the
matter fresh on the merits of the case after granting adequate opportunity
of being heard to the appellant assessee.
Per contra, the ld. DR though supported the impugned order,
however, he has no objection to the request of the ld. Counsel in restoring
the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits of
the case.
3 ITA No. 14/JPR/2024 Surams Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 4. We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on
record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the
appeal of the assessee ex-parte without discussing the merits of the case
by observing that despite repeated notices, the appellant has not seen it fit
to file any submissions, information or document during appellate
proceedings and that only material on record, in this case was the Form
No. 35 filed by the appellant and copy of assessment order dated
27.12.2022. He concluded that there is no material on record to
interference in the order of the AO without reference to the certified
documents filed by the ld. Counsel for the appellant (APB pg. nos. 1 to 15)
as above claimed to be forming part of the assessment record. In our view,
the ld. CIT(A) ought to have discussed the merits of the case and rebutted
the disagreement if any to the appellant assessee.
In view of the principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to
remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter
afresh on the issue of unexplained commission income after grating
sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the
material evidence available on the record and to be filed in the fresh
proceedings before the CIT(A). We mentioned that the Bench has
4 ITA No. 14/JPR/2024 Surams Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and thus, the ld. CIT(A) is
free to adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case afresh as per law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The ld. CIT (4) The ld. CIT(A) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T., Jaipur (6) Guard File By Order,
Asstt. Registrar
