Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH AHMEDABAD
PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad’s ex parte order dated 09.06.2015 in case no. CIT(A)- 4/302/Cir.4(2)/14-15, upholding Assessing Officer’s action disallowing alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.15,00,074/- in assessment order dated 20th
ITA No. 2358/Ahd/15 [M/s. Malav Association vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 -
March, 2014, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both sides. Case file perused.
Relevant facts are in a very narrow compass. This assessee is a builder, property developer, organizer developing real estate housing projects. It claimed to have purchased various construction materials from one M/s. Visatkrupa Enterprise. The Assessing Officer noticed its failure in not being able to produce the said payees. He further deputed department officials for on the spot verification. They reported that the said address did not have assessee’s payee best at that place. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued Section 133(6) notice. The same stood unreplied. The assessee on the other hand claimed to have provided address, name, TIN no., invoices and PAN details. The Assessing Officer concluded in assessment order that the said detail were not sufficient to prove that the assessee had incurred the impugned expenditure for commercial consideration wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. He therefore disallowed the above purchases amounting to Rs.15,00,074/-.
The CIT(A) affirms the impugned disallowance in his ex parte order.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions. It emerges from the CIT(A)’s order that he issued four hearing notices to the assessee on 23.04.2015, 30.04.2015, 13.05.2015 and 26.05.2015 fixing the case on 28.04.2015, 13.05.2015, 25.05.2015 and 04.06.2015; respectively. The assessee’s non appearance therein in any of the said four occasions made the CIT(A) to pass the impugned ex parte order confirming the impugned disallowance. We notice in this backdrop that there is not even a slight indication in the lower appellate order that the assessee had been served any of the four hearing notices. The assessee reiterates before us that it has always been willing to pursue its instant lis. We therefore observe in larger interest of justice that it deserves one more innings before the CIT(A). We order accordingly. The CIT(A) is directed to re-adjudicate
ITA No. 2358/Ahd/15 [M/s. Malav Association vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 -
assessee’s appeal on merits after affording it three effective opportunities of hearing to assessee.
This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.
[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 29th day of September, 2017.]
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 29/09/2017