SUN SOFTLINK PVT. LTD.,ROHTAK vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1108/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2020AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that notices from the CIT(A) were likely not served on the assessee, leading to a summary decision. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the CIT(A) to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without sufficient opportunity. The assessee claimed to have documentary evidence to support its claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notices and adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 41(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- 17, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:-

1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal as exparte.

2. That the Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 46,11,000/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share application money. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 46,00,000/- u/s. 41(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained difference in opening and closing balance of creditors. 4. That the AO has erred in law as on facts in making addition of Rs. 30,06,000/- on account of alleged non-existing sundry creditors after applying provisions of Section 41(1)(a). 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.

2.

Facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Shri K. Sampath alongwith Shri S. Krishnan and Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocates appeared for the assessee and stated that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed the exparte order against the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity for substantiating the claim of the assessee. It was further stated that assessee is having all the documentary evidences for substantiating the claim of the assessee and therefore, the issues in dispute may be set aside to the Assessing Officer.

4.

On the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities especially the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi and we are of the view that no doubt that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has issued notice many times to the Assessee, but in our view these notices have not been served upon the Assessee and without serving the notices upon the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues in dispute in a summary manner and passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the impugned order and sending back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), we are directing the Assessee through its Counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 27.10.2020 at 10.00 AM for substantiating its case.

7.

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The decision is pronounced on 18.08.2020.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →