SHRISHTI BUILDHOME P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 795/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 August 2019AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one final opportunity to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment and substantiate its claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. The Assessing Officer had made additions under Section 68 for unexplained share application money and under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance should be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. R. K. PANDA

For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08/08/2019Pronounced: 08/08/2019
2.

Since common issues are involved in both these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. It was further seen that the assessment order as well as orders of CIT(A) are exparte orders. I, therefore, proceed to decide both these appeals on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

4.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) determining total income at Rs.34,16,570/- for assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.26,66,430/- for A. Y. 2009-10. In both these assessment years the Assessing Officer has made addition u/s. 68 on account of unexplained share application money and unexplained expenditure u/.s. 69C. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee before the CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) in the exparte order passed by him dismissed the appeal for both the assessment years.

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that there was non compliance before the CIT(A) for which the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the Page | 2 exparte order confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years.

7.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) without seeking adjournment under any pretext and substantiate its case failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →