Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.C. GUPTA & SHRI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI SHRI SHRI
PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA, VP PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA , VP , VP : , VP This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi dated 11th March, 2013.
The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under:-
“1. That the order of the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary, biased, bad in law and in facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable and proper opportunity to the appellant to represent its case.
2 ITA-3769/Del/2013
3. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing an ex-parte order.
4. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs.1,14,21,141/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of AIR information.
5. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the rejection of books of accounts and disallowance of loss of Rs.25,61,55,406/- without any basis or evidence ignoring to the audited financial statements filed during the course of assessment proceedings.”
Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the ex parte assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) has also passed the ex parte order. He submitted that the assessee company was in huge losses and was BIFR company and was hit by adverse circumstances. He submitted that the only one hearing was given to the assessee by the Assessing Officer and, that too, at the end of the limitation period and, therefore, the assessee could not plead its case before the Revenue authorities.
Learned DR has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. He submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee to plead its case.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). We find that the assessee was a BIFR company and was hit by circumstances and this claim of the assessee could not be controverted on behalf of the Revenue. The opportunity of hearing was allowed by the Assessing Officer but the notices of hearing issued to the assessee came back and ultimately, notice u/s 143(2) was served on the assessee by affixture on 27.09.2011. The Assessing Officer has issued
3 ITA-3769/Del/2013 questionnaire dated 08.08.2011/23.11.2011 and the assessment was framed on 30th December, 2011 ex parte u/s 144 of the Act. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it shall be in the interest of justice to restore the issue in the grounds of appeal of the assessee to the file of the learned CIT(A) with direction to frame a de novo appellate order in accordance with law after allowing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall be at liberty to adduce any evidence in support of its case and the learned CIT(A) shall give an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to give his comments on the evidence so produced by the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the disposal of its appeal before the learned CIT(A) and we direct that the assessee shall obtain the notice of hearing from the office of the CIT(A) within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of our order. We direct accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 5th October, 2015.