MOHIT FURNACE PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, FACELESS
No AI summary yet for this case.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 746/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Mohit Furnace Private Limited बनाम The NFAC, Delhi Lakhowal Gadowal Road, Kohara Ludhiana, Punjab "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAECM1461G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt, Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/09/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/09/2024 आदेश/Order PER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee company in terms of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The relevant Assessment Year is 2021-22 and corresponding previous year is 2020-21. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/250/2023-24/1056598225(1) dt. 27/09/2023 passed under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”.
At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 03 days in filing the appeal by the Assessee as pointed out by the Registry.
Since the assessee has shown sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, therefore delay of 03 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. Factual Matrix
The assessee, a company, filed the return of income on 15/03/2022 for the A.Y. 2021-22, declaring total income of Rs. NIL/-. Subsequently, the case was selected under CASS under category 'Complete scrutiny.' Accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the I T Act & other notices were issued and the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27/12/2022 with the following additions:
Disallowance of Rs. 6,57,77,844/- u/s.69C of the Act and 2. Cash deposits of Rs. 28,95,000/- in Karnataka Bank was treated as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act.
1 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
2 The Assessee has remained non-compliant during the appellate proceedings and has not provided any concrete evidence relating to the addition made by the AO during the course of assessment, for which the assessee filed an appeal, rebutting the same with various grounds of appeal. Thus the assessee has not been able to controvert the stand taken by the Assessing Officer during the Appellate proceedings before the Ld CIT(A). The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known dictum, "VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT". Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) saw no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal raised by the assessee was dismissed.
The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal before us in Form No. 36 which is form of appeal to this Tribunal and has raised following grounds:
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [C1T(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice, (ii) That the nonappearance before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in confirming the income of the appellant at Rs. 6,86,72,844/- as against income of Rs. 1 1,87,735/-
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,57,77,844/- u/s 69C" of the Act by treating the purchases or part of the purchases as unexplained expenditure.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition of cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant of Rs. 28,95,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act by treating the same as unexplained credits.
In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not taking the allegation to the logical conclusion after having held that the purchases are not genuine its obvious implication would have been that the sales are also not genuine.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in drawing adverse inference against the assesses on the basis of material collected at. the hack of it, without giving it an opportunity to rebut the same, in violation of principle of natural justice.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal Record of Hearing
The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 04/09/2024 when both the Ld. DR for the Department and the Ld. AR for the assessee appeared before us. Both of them were heard at length for some time on their respective contentions. The debate was mostly on nature of exparte impugned order being violative of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR interalia contended before us that impugned order besides being exparte is a non speaking order with no plausible reasons given on merits of the case. It was incumbent upon Ld. CIT(A) to have disposed off the case on merits even otherwise. The Ld. DR contended that despite four opportunities afforded to assessee not a single opportunity was availed of and placed reliance on para 3 of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) to demonstrate this phenomenon. However DR conquered with view Ld. AR that impugned order is not a speaking order and well reasoned order on merits of the case.
Findings and Conclusions
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We have simultaneously perused the records of the case as presented to us. We are of the considered view that in view of near unanimity between the views of Ld. AR and Ld. DR on non speaking / unreasoned order on merits of the case, this Tribunal as second appellate authority do not have the full and complete benefit of reasons of the first appellate authority on merits of the case even if this Tribunal venture to decide the issues on merits which both parties have not canvassed before us due to obvious reason. Under these circumstances we are left with no other option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who would given full and complete opportunities once again and that too finally before passing a fresh order on merits of the case. We want meritorious disposal of first appeal, assessee to cooperate with Department in earliest disposal of case. Order
Impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/09/2024 िव"म िसंह यादव परेश म. जोशी ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (PARESH M. JOSHI) लेखा सद"/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/
