SHREE SAIBABA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1312/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. It was held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 312 days. The assessee attributed this delay to an employee leaving the company and failing to communicate the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without detailed adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and whether the addition made under Section 68 was justified without proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Belani, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Pronounced: 23.10.2024

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Saibaba Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 902, Galav Chamber, Sayajigunj, Ward-2(1)(3), Vadodard-390020 Vadodara [PAN No.AATCS6800N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Darshan Belani, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R. 23.10.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 23.10.2024 O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 27.06.2023 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2.

“1. The learned C1T(A) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte. It is submitted that the Appellant had genuine and reasonable cause for not being able to file written submissions before the learned CIT(A), and therefore, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) ex-parte be quashed and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication denovo.

2.

The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,27,20,000/- u/s.68 of the Act, which was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny for which its case was taken up for scrutiny as mentioned by the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment order. It is submitted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the exempt income as well as investment/advance/loan which suggests that the learned Assessing Officer was required to inquire about the investment made or loans and advances given by the Appellant and not in respect of the unsecured loans availed by the Appellant.

Shree Saibaba Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– The learned Assessing Officer has, thus, exceeded the jurisdiction beyond limited scrutiny, and hence, the order passed by him as confirmed by CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

3.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,27,20,000/- received as unsecured loan by the Appellant during the year under consideration u/s.68 of the Act. It is submitted that the Appellant has led sufficient evidences in order to prove identity of the party, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the party, and thus, discharged the onus that lay upon it u/s.68 of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now and the addition of Rs.1,27,20,000/-made by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) be deleted.

4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal

.”

3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 312 days. The assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay vide Affidavit dated 19.06.2024, wherein the assessee stated that the order of NFAC was served on the assessee’s registered email id. However, the person who was looking after the taxation and finance matters of the company left the job and did not convey the company about the CIT(A)’s order. After verification of the past records, the company noticed that the appeal has to be filed before the Tribunal. There was an inadvertent delay on the part of the assessee, as a result of which there was a delay of 312 days in filing of the present appeal. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no mala fide intention in delaying the filing of the appeal and hence the same may be kindly condoned.

4.

Looking into the instant facts and the reasons cited by the assessee, the delay of 312 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned in the interest of justice.

5.

At the outset, both the parties submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed order ex-parte without adjudicating in detail on the merits of the issue.

Shree Saibaba Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

The Ld. Sr. D.R. objected in principle.

8.

However, having gone through the records, we are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass the order de-novo after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall submit all the details and comply with all the notices before Ld. CIT(A) from time to time without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9.

This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 23/10/2024

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 23/10/2024 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →