M/S VIVEK CONSTRUCITON,BALCO NAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

That on facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.3,76,46,483/- u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of alleged interest free loan given by the assessee is bad in law.

That the Assessee craves leave to add, alter, and amend modify substitute, delete, and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.” Vivek Construction vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1)

The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, a Civil Contractor, filed its Income Tax Returns (‘ITRs’) of AYs 2021-22 and 2023-24 declaring income of Rs.6,91,99,580/- and 12,76,02,170/- respectively. Both cases were picked up for scrutiny and consequential scrutiny assessment orders of AYs 2021-22 and 2023-24 were completed at income of Rs.7,95,40,111/- and Rs.16,52,48,653/- under section 143(3) rws 144B and sec 144(3) of the Act respectively. Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution.

Before us, the assessee was not represented by anyone. Therefore, we heard Ms. Bharti Singh, Ld. CIT-DR and Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR in respective cases. The Ld. CIT-DR and Ld. Sr. DR argued the cases vehemently and prayed for dismissal of both appeals.

Ms. Bharti Singh, Ld. CIT-DR, drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that the Authorities below had provided reasonable opportunities of being heard to the appellant assessee; however, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance to avoid investigations. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the appeal. Similar arguments were also taken by the Ld. Sr. DR in other case. On our specific query, the Ld. CIT-DR and Ld. Sr. DR reluctantly admitted for remanding the cases back to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of both cases on merit. Vivek Construction vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1)

We have heard Ld. CIT-DR and Sr. DR and have perused the materials available on the records. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided any appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeals in writing with well-reasoned orders on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.).

We take note of the fact that the assessee has made any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the non-compliance on the part of the assessee is the sole reason for dismissal of both appeals. Considering the facts in entirety and in the interest of justice, we are refraining ourselves from offering any comment on merit of these cases. However, we deem it fit to set aside both impugned orders and remand both the cases back to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding these Vivek Construction vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1)

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above.

""थ"/ The Respondent

The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.