VIKRANT ROPES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHILAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण �ायपीठ रायपुर म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH :: RAIPUR V I R T U A L H E A R I N G BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.56/RPR/2020 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer- 27, Civic Centre, Bhilai. Vs 1(1), Bhilai. PAN : AAACV 8071 B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Prakash Bakliwal(Adv.) & Shri Sangeet Bakliwal – CA Revenue by Shri Piyush Tripathi – DR Date of hearing 31/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 12/06/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Appellant Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II, Raipur dated 20/01/2020 emanating from the order u/s 143(1) dated 12/01/2017 for AY 2016-17 passed by the Asst.Director of Income Tax(CPC). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: “(1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned C.I.T.(Appeal)-II- Raipur has dismissed the appeal without giving reasonable and proper opportunity to the Assessee / Appellant. The same order is quite unjustified and bad, both in law and facts.

ITA No.56/RPR/2020 Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., [A]

(2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case without giving the reasonable opportunity, the order passed U/S 143 (1) by the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax CPC Bangalore is quite unjustified & bad both in law and facts. The reasonable opportunity should be given.

(3) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the loss declared in the return of income should be accepted in TOTO. The loss declared in the Return of (Income is as under : -

(i) Business loss declared Rs.3,41,729/- (ii) Depreciation loss declared Rs.32,08,007/- The same should be accepted in TOTO. (4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax CPC, Bangalore and learned C.I.T.(Appeal) II – Raipur has determined the income of Rs.15,74,380/- is quite illegal and bad both in law and facts.

(5) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax CPC, Bangalore and learned C.I.T. (Appeal) II- Raipur has determined the income U/S 115 JB of Rs.7,18,077/- is quite illegal and bad both in law and facts.

(6) That on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Unabsorbed Depreciation Loss of Rs.2200884/- of A.Y. 2015-16 should be set off / carried forward in the subsequent years.

(7) That reasonable opportunity should be given to the Appellant as per the principal of natural justice.

(8) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tax payable / determined of Rs.5,59,176/- is quite illegal and bad both in law & facts of the case.

ITA No.56/RPR/2020 Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., [A]

(9) Any other grounds may be received at the time of hearing f appeal.”

Findings and Analysis 2. Thus, the major grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to the assessee. On perusal of the ld.CIT(A)’s order it is observed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that no one appeared for assessee and no details have been filed by the assessee to substantiate its claim of business loss. It is also observed from the order under section 143(1) that nowhere the Asst.Director Income Tax (CPC) has mentioned that opportunity was provided to the assessee and what was the reply of the assessee and if the reply was not acceptable the reason for same. The Ld.AR has submitted before us written submission, in the said written submission it is mentioned that the notice dated 19/12/2019 issued by the ld.CIT(A) was received by the assessee on 31/12/2019. It is further mentioned in the written submission that the Advocate of the appellant attended the office of the ld.CIT(A) on schedule date of hearing, i.e. 01/01/2020, however, it was told to the Advocate that the ld.CIT(A) was busy .

ITA No.56/RPR/2020 Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., [A]

However, we do not understand what details the ld.CIT(A) was looking for, the issue was Business Loss, the ld.CIT(A) had access to copies of all the returns and Audit Reports of the assessee as Department is custodian of returns and its enclosures . It was easy for the ld.CIT(A) to get the returns and audit report and verify the claim of the assessee. However, ld.CIT(A) merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 12th June, 2023 / SGR* आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Applicant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-I, Raipur. 4. The Pr. CIT-I, Raipur.

ITA No.56/RPR/2020 Vikrant Ropes Pvt. Ltd., [A]