SANGAM RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANALI vs. ITO, WARD, KULLU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay in filing and non-response to notices. The assessee claimed they did not receive notices and had filed an application for condonation of delay which was not entertained.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the condonation of delay and providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 40(A)(ia),Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271A,Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
आदेश/ORDER
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2013-14 against the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken :
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in passing ex-parte order.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in passing order without providing proper opportunity of being heard.
ITA 343/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 2 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in-law, and without jurisdiction and CIT (A) erred in not holding so.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 45,22,000/- made by the assessing officer on the account of unsecured loans.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,10,157/- made by the assessing officer on the account of capital work in progress.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,81,205/- made by the assessing officer on the account of disallowance of employee benefit expenses.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,96,630/- made by the assessing officer on the account of disallowance u/s 40(i)(ia) of the Act.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 56,12,280/- made by the assessing officer on the account of disallowance trade payables as alleged bogus liability.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,51,920/- made by the assessing officer on the account of disallowance current liabilities as alleged bogus liability.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in charging interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act without giving credit for seized cash.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2013-14 on 25.09.2013
ITA 343/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 3 declaring total loss at Rs.1,50,70,312/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify large share application money received against un-allotted shares. Statutory notices were issued by the Assessing Officer to submit details which were complied by filing the details. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called for books of account which the assessee failed to produce and adjournments were taken under one account or the other.
Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 144 on 28.03.2016 determining total income at Rs.64,03,880/- after making following disallowances : a) Unsecured Loans raised during the year - Rs. 45,22,000/- b) Capital work under the head WIP Rs. 43,10,157/- c) 50 % of Employee benefit expenses Rs. 27,81,205/- d) u/s. 40(A)(ia) - unexplained expenses Rs. 1,96,630/- e) Unexplained - Trade Payables Rs. 56,12,280/- f) Unexplained trade liability Rs. 40,51,920/- 3. Aggrieved by this order of the Assessing Officer, the AO went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal on 19.09.2016, which was to be filed on or before 30.04.2016. Therefore, there was a delay of 143 days in filing the appeal. A number of notices/communications through ITBA portal were sent to the assessee viz dated 15.01.2021, 24.02.2021, 28.12.2022, 30.12.2022, 11.01.2023 and 09.03.2023, however, the assessee did not respond to the notices. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A)
ITA 343/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 4 dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, against which the assessee has come in appeal before this Tribunal.
Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had submitted application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal dated 10.11.2017 before the ld. CIT(A) , Palampur, which was received in the office of the CIT(A)
Palampur on 20.11.2017, but the same was not entertained while dismissing the appeal. The contents of the application are reproduced hereunder :
ITA 343/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 5
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The notices were issued on the e-portal to the assessee but the assessee states that he did not receive any notice of hearing. Further, there is nothing on record to prove that the assessee has been served notice of hearing to furnish the relevant information/documents etc. Moreover, the assessee has filed copy of the communication made to the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay, which was not entertained while dismissing the appeal in limine. In these facts, we hereby condone the delay incurred in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the matter to ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th January,2024.
More judgments on Section 40(A)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
