Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Geeta Sharma v. Income Tax Officer 1(4) C/o M/s Neeraj Foods Trading Shahjahanpur Company Moh. Matani Shahjahanpur TAN/PAN:BEEPS6201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 07 08 2024 Date of pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.4.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed her return of income in ITR-3 on 31.10.2018, declaring total income of Rs.5,69,770/- after claiming deduction under section 80C & 80TTA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) at Rs.1,53,970/- out of gross total income shown at Rs.7,23,739/- consisting of profits and gains from business at Rs.7,19,769/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,970/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.17,97,270/- by making disallowance of Rs.2,37,412/- on account of interest paid and addition of Rs.9,90,091/- on account of shortfall in gross profit.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of her appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed being illegal.
2. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT is bad in law as the disallowance of Rs.2,37,412/- on account of interest paid to the income of the appellant is wholly erroneous and illegal hence the order deserves to be set aside.
3. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT is bad in law as the shortfall in GP percentage of Rs.9,90,091/- on account of interest paid to the income of the appellant is wholly erroneous and illegal hence the order deserves to be set aside and quashed.
4. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has been added the addition without considering the reply of the assessee therefore the order deserves to be set aside and quashed.
5. Because, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has passed the order without providing the assessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing therefore the impugned order deserves to be set-aside being bad in law.
The ld. AR prayed that the assessee’s appeal may be restored to the file of the NFAC for the purpose of adjudication on merits.
Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the NFAC.
I have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that there was complete non- compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of first appellate proceedings. However, looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the NFAC with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the NFAC in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the NFAC shall be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/08/2024.