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

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

(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.

(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 .

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.