M/S BAGGA MILLENIUM LIQUORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

are as follows: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-V, New Delhi is erroneous, both in law and on the facts.

2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-V, New Delhi has erred on facts and in law in sustaining the ex-parte Assessment Order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating increase in Unsecured Loans as unexplained cash credits, without considering the facts and material available on record and without affording the reasonable and adequate opportunity to the appellant.

3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-V, New Delhi has erred on facts and in law in sustaining addition of Rs.8,31,31,839/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating increase in Unsecured Loans as unexplained cash credits, without considering the facts and materials available on record and without affording the reasonable and adequate opportunity to the appellant.

4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-V, New Delhi has erred on facts and in law in sustaining addition of Rs.1,30,137/- as undisclosed income on the basis of AIR information received through Income Tax System, without considering the facts and materials available on record by way of Interest Received of Rs.1,00,934/- reflected in the Audited Profit & Loss Account submitted to the Learned Assessing Officer and without affording the reasonable and adequate opportunity to the appellant by way of providing AIR information received through Income Tax System and seeking explanation from the appellant in respect of difference in Interest Received as per AIR information received through Income Tax System and Interest Received as per Audited Profit & Loss Account of the appellant.

5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-V, New Delhi has erred on facts and in law in sustaining addition of rS.79,85,502/- by disallowing 20% of expenditures claimed without considering the facts and materials available on record and without affording the reasonable and adequate opportunity to the appellant.”

3. The main contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order. The explanation given by the assessee in the statement of fact before the CIT (A) for non-appearance was as follows:- 2. That the Learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in passing the ex-parte Assessment Order u/s 144 of the Income tax Act, 1961, on 17the December 2009, without affording the reasonable and adequate opportunity to the appellant. The Learned Assessing Officer was aware of the fact that the appellant has shifted its office from Gurgaon to Hyderabad and the State of Andhra Pradesh in general and City of Hyderabad in particular were passing through state of turmoil facing closure of business activities/city bandh, widespread violence, protests, agitations and political unrest due to dispute over creation of new Telangana State. In these circumstances, the Learned Assessing Officer has not afforded reasonable and adequate opportunity to the appellant thereby violating the principal of natural justice and equity.”

4. The assessee further stated that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) as his father was suffering from cancer and died on 2013. The Assessee submitted the medical report as well. In the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that the Assessing Officer after giving proper hearing to the assessee decide the issue and make an addition or disallowance accordingly as per the law. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer needless to say the assessee may be given proper hearing.