Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Vel Murugan Timber Traders, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, No.16-1B, Red Hills Road, Non-Corp Circle-10(1) Kathirvedu, Chennai Chennai-600099. [PAN: AACFV8475C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Balasubramanian, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Chinthapalli Meher Chand, JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067043180(1) dated 26.07.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2018- 19. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 26.07.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 13.04.2021 and that the appeal was dismissed on account of non-appearance. The assesse a trader of woods for which it imports and makes purchase of coal. The AO made an addition of Rs.34,78,262/- by not accepting its business results. Before the Ld. First Appellate Authority the assesse filed appeal with statement of facts and accompanying documents. The Ld. CIT(A) however chose to dismiss the appeal on the premise on non-appearance. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse pleaded that the assesse has been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that the email id of the earlier chartered account of the assesse had been given and that the said chartered account did not respond to the impugned notices. The assesse confirmed that it has now given a new email Id. It was accordingly prayed that matter may be considered for restoration to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse assured that full compliance would made now. The Ld. DR proposed that cost may be levied upon the assesse.
3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse, as to why it could not prosecute its case. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of non-appearance by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. We have also noted that the assesse has submitted that the Ld. AO in para- 5.3 and 5.4 of his order also indicated that complete details were not forthcoming from the assesse. As a result of which he had estimated the business profits over impugned additions.
4.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences. Accordingly, we set aside the order of authorities below. We have also noted that the Ld. AO in para-5.3 to 5.6 of his order has alluded towards non-submission of details by the assesse leading to his drawing of conclusions. The assessing officer is the primary authority to determine taxable income of a tax payer by collecting and colleting evidences. Accordingly, placing reliance upon the decision in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 the matter is restored to the file of the AO for 4 -: assessment de novo. He is directed to give due opportunities of being heard to the assesse. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the AO. Any non- compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed.