Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 02/04/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“The Ex-parte order passed by Commissioner of income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre U/% 143/3) is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre Income Tax Department has issued notices of hearing on e-mail ID of cavijayjadhav@gmail.com. which were not belongs to assessee and assessee has not received any notice of hearing, therefor without providing opportunity to being heard ex-parte order
2 Rajendra Shankarrao Jadhao ITA no.225/Nag./2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre is illegal, invalid and bad in law.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in conforming additions made by assessing officer at Rs.21.13,900/- are unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
On the facts and circumstances of the ease the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal. National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not accepting the contention of the assessee and erred in confirming addition made ar learned assessing officer U/s. 69C at Rs.11,53,425. account of unexplained cash credit, therefore, addition confirmed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have accepted withdrawal made from firm at Rs.31,73,822/ and out of which assessee has paid sum of Rs.11,53,425/- contributed from its own capital, therefore addition made U/s. 69C as unexplained expenditure, therefore order passed without considering any reply is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition made by the learned assessing officer without accepting the contention of the assessee and made addition by disallowing claimed U/s. 36(1)(va) at Rs.1,26,445/- therefore, the addition confirmed without considering the reply are unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not accepting contention of the assessee that expenses were paid before the due date of filing of return and as per time limit prescribed under the relevant Act and the same were allowable expenses under section 36(1)(va) at Rs.1,26,445/- therefore, the addition confirmed without considering the reply by CIT(A) NFAC is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming addition made by learned assessing officer without accepting contention of the assessee and made addition of Rs.8,34,032/ on account of unexplained interest on loan and advances, therefore, without considering any reply addition confirmed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have considered fact that amount shown outstanding was old balances and already accepted by the department and there is sufficient balance with the assessee, therefore, addition confirmed without considering any reply is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
3 Rajendra Shankarrao Jadhao ITA no.225/Nag./2024
The assessee is denied the liability of interest charges U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, the same may kindly be deleted.
The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.”
When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the 3. assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).
4. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities inspite of that the assesse has not appeared before the learned CIT(A) and not filed relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).
5. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. I find that though the learned CIT(A) gave opportunities to the assessee, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate his case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
4 Rajendra Shankarrao Jadhao ITA no.225/Nag./2024
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/09/2024