M/S CAN & ABLE EVENTS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 555/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 August 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for multiple assessment years were consolidated as the facts and issues were identical. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and no hearing notices were served.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was a speaking order on merits or an ex-parte dismissal for non-appearance, and if the latter, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI. SANJAY GARG & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr.DR
Hearing: 02/08/2018Pronounced: 23/08

Per Bench:

The captioned appeals have been preferred by the same

assessee for different assessment years. However, the facts and

issues involved in all the appeals are identical and even identical

grounds of appeals have been taken, hence, these appeals are heard

together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

For the sake of convenience, ITA No. 552/Chd/2018 for 2008-

09 is taken as a lead case. The assessee in this appeal has taken the

following grounds of appeal:-

ITA Nos.552 to564/Chd/2018- M/s Can * Able Events Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh 3

1.

That the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3 is not a speaking order, is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A)-3 has grossly erred in charging the net profit rate at 11% and making an addition of Rs. 3,78,360/- thereby ignoring the returned income of Rs. 4,23,035/- declared by the assessee.

3.

That the Ld. CIT(A)-3 has erred in disallowing payments made in excess of limits specified under section 40A(3) to the tune of Rs. 43,350/- without correctly appreciating the facts of the case.

4.

That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the said appeal.

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our

attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the

same is an ex-parte order of the CIT(A). He has further submitted

that though it has been mentioned by the CIT(A) that the notices

were issued / served upon the assessee, however, no such notice of

date of hearing of appeal were ever served upon the assessee. He has

further submitted that even the appeal of the assessee has been

dismissed for non-appearance and no findings has been returned by

the CIT(A) in respect of the case on merits.

4.

Though the assessee in this case has taken a plea that no notice

of hearing of appeal was ever served by the Ld. CIT(A) on this

assessee, yet, we find that even otherwise the impugned order of the

CIT(A) is not an order on merits, rather, it is a simple disposal of

the appeal for want of prosecution. The powers of the CIT(A) are co-

terminus with that of the Assessing officer and he was supposed to

decide the issue on merits even otherwise.

ITA Nos.552 to564/Chd/2018- M/s Can * Able Events Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh 4

5.

Considering the above over all facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the interest of justice will be well served if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits, in accordance with law. We order accordingly. Needless to say that CIT(A) will provide proper opportunity to the assessee to present itself or through his counsel on the date of hearing and the assessee will also cooperate and will not contribute to any unnecessary adjournment of the case

Since the facts and issue involved in all the appeals are identical, hence, all the appeals are accordingly restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh in the above terms. In view of this, all the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23/08/2018

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 23.08. 2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →