Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
Assessee by: Shri Kashyap Padia Department by: Shri Shiddaramappa Kappatta Narvar सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing: 02.12.2015 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned “CIT(A)”] relevant to the assessment year 2006-07.
The assessee has raised the following points:
That the order of the learned CIT(A) is wrong against the law and facts with regard to confirming the net A.Y. 2006-07 profit @ 12% on the sales of Rs.49,51,44,527/- amounting to Rs.5,94,17,343/- u/s 144 r.w.s 145(3).
2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred with regard to confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as undisclosed sources of income.
3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.18,91,274/- as unexplained loans.
The other issues are general in nature nowhere raised any specific point to be decided.
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring the total income to the tune of Rs.5,70,971/- on 30.10.2006. The return was accompanied by Audit Report in Form No. 3CB & 3CD as required u/s.44AB of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short “the Act”) along with audited copy of P&L A/c., Balance Sheet, statement of accounts etc. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. The case was finally assessed at Rs.6,20,81,650/-. The assessment was finalized in view of the section 144 r.w.s 145(3) of the Act. The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer despite receipt of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act at eleven occasions on number of dates. List of dates are tabulated.
Sr. Section under which notice is Date of Date of Remarks No issued notice compliance 1 Notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T.Act 07.02.2008 19.02.2008 Neither any body has 1961 along with a detailed attended nor any questionnaire adjournment was sought. 2 This office letter / notice u/s 10.03.2008 14.03.2008 -do- 142(1) of the I.T.Act 1961 A.Y. 2006-07 3 Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) of 10.03.2008 14.03.2008 -do- the I.T.Act 1961 4 Summons u/s 131 of the I.T.Act 10.03.2008 14.03.2008 -do- 1961 5 Penalty of Rs.10000/- was levied 27.03.2008 -- -- (sic) by an order u/s 271(1)(b) of the of the I.T.Act 1961 6 Summons u/s 131 of the I.T.Act 16.04.2008 29.04.2008 -do- 1961 7 Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) of 16.04.2008 29.04.2008 -do- the I.T.Act 1961 8 This office letter / notice u/s 26.09.2008 08.10.2008 -do- 142(1) of the I.T.Act 1961 9 This office letter / notice u/s of 17.10.2008 24.10.2008 -do- the I.T.Act 1961 10 This office letter / notice u/s of 04.11.2008 12.11.2008 -do- the I.T.Act 1961 11 Summons u/s 131 of the I.T.Act 17.11.2008 24.11.2008 -do- 1961 4. In the assessment, Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and made ex-parte assessment. Assessing Officer made addition estimating the Net Profit @ 12% on the sales of Rs.49,52,00,000/- (Rounded off). Assessing Officer made many other additions and determined the assessed income at Rs.6,20,81,650/- against the Return income of Rs.5,70,917/-. The order is passed u/s 144 r.w.s 145(3) of the Act.
Aggrieved with the said order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against all additions made in the assessment. Assessee also appeared before the learned CIT(A) along with the AR as per discussion in para 3 of the impugned order. Learned CIT(A) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer para 3 & 4 describes the details in this regard. Subsequently, none appeared for the assessee before the learned CIT(A). Eventually, learned CIT(A) extracted the Assessing Officer’s order and also the remand report in his order and upheld the Assessing Officer’s addition vide para 7. The same reads as under: A.Y. 2006-07 “On going through the Balance Sheet of the assessee for the year under consideration, it is noticed that assessee has shown loans advanced to the tune of Rs.24,12,432/- as against a sum of Rs.5,21,158/- shown for the earlier A.Y.2005-06. From this, it is quite apparent that during the period under consideration assessee has advanced new loans to the tune of Rs.18,91,274/- (Rs.24,12,432 - Rs.5,21,158). In the absence of any details / documentary evidences with regard to the source of these advances, the same are also treated as advanced out of undisclosed sources of the assessee and accordingly, the above said sum of Rs.18,91,274/- is added back to his total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act are initiated separately.” From the perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A), we find the same is not passed as per provision of 250(6) of the Act. He merely extracted the order and remand report of the Assessing Officer. We cannot consider the impugned order as a speaking order.
Therefore, we are of the opinion, it is in the interest of justice the learned CIT(A) need to pass a speaking order and in accordance with the law. Learned CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee as per the set principles.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.