SANGAM RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANALI vs. ITO, WARD, KULLU

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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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.”

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).

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.

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

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).

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th January,2024.

Sd/- Sd/-

(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (A.D.JAIN ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANTMEMBER “Poonam”

ITA 343/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 6

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. .��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar