M/S AKSHIT ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-7(1), LUDHIANA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1598/Chd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/s Akshit Enterprises, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, House No.198, Mall Enclave, Ward 7(1), Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: AAJFR7626N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Kultej Singh Bains, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 09.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018

ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3,

Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as (‘Ld.CIT(Appeals)’)

dated 21.9.2017 relating to assessment year 2012-13.

income from Trading of Yarn & cloth. Return of income in

this case was filed at Rs.29,010/-.Thereafter during the

course of assessment proceedings it was found by the

Assessing Officer that the assessee has received advances

at Rs.46,00,000/- details of which are as under:

S.No. Description Amount received 1. Advance against agricultural land Rs. 6,00,000/- 2. Ludhiana Scrips Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 20,00,000/- 3. Land sale (Dilbag Singh) Rs.20,00,000/- The assessee was asked to explain this nature and

purpose of loans of Rs.46,00,000/- received during the

year under consideration. In response to this the assessee

stated that Rs.20 lacs has been received from Sh. Dilbag

Singh as advances against sale of land, Rs. 6Lac has been

received as advance against sale of agricultural land and

Rs.20 lacs also received as advance against sale of land

from M/s Ludhiana Scrips Pvt. Ltd. Neither the

details/location of land against which said advances were

claimed to have been received nor confirmation from the

parties were furnished by the assessee. The assessee was

again asked to furnish ITR and relevant bank statements

to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the persons and

genuineness of transaction. But assessee failed to prove.

Therefore, sum of Rs.46,00,000/- was added to the income

of the assessee as his income from undisclosed sources

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Further it was noticed

by the Assessing Officer that there was addition of

Rs.88,00,000/- in the capital of the partner, Sh.Rajesh

Gupta and Rs.2,97,000/- in the capital of Smt. Kajal

Gupta, partner during the year under consideration. The

assessee was asked to furnish the documentary evidence

regarding additions made in the capital. No documentary

evidence in support of the said claim was furnished by

the assessee as required. Therefore the Assessing Officer

made addition of the same to the income of the assessee

amounting to Rs.90,97,000/-(8800000+297000) as income

from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,

1961.

who decided and dismissed the assessee’s appeal after

dealing with all the grounds raised on the basis of

documents available with him, on account of non

cooperative attitude of the assessee during appellate

proceedings.

appeal before us.Ground No.1 raised by the assesse reads

as under:

“1. That the worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – III, Ludhiana has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,36,97,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Six Lacs Ninety Thousands Only) u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and misinterpreting the letter as stated in the Order that the new Counsel of the Appellant did not enclose the Medical Certificate, whereas he first appeared on 08.08.2017 and was operated for some severe problem on 20.09.2017 i.e. the date of hearing and the Certificate of AMC Bassi Hospital, Ludhiana for his admission to Hospital for operation TURP was enclosed. Since, he was admitted to Hospital and was operated on the same day i.e. the date of hearing was advised rest and non-giving of adjournment and opportunity to present the case is against all canons of equity for justice.” 5. The assessee in the above ground has challenged the

dismissal of its appeal on the ground that adequate

opportunity of hearing was not given to it.Vis-à-vis the

above ground the Ld. counsel for assessee stated that the

hearing before the CIT(Appeals) could not be attended by

the assessee for the reason that the father of the earlier

counsel for the assessee Shri Adarsh Bansal, CA was ill and

admitted in hospital on 14.11.2016 because of which

adjournment was sought in the hearing of the appeal on

15.11.2016. Further it was pointed out that a new counsel

was appointed by the assessee Shri S.P Sharma, who was

also admitted in hospital for operation on 20.9.2017 and

was discharged only on 22.9.2017 from the hospital on

account of which the hearing of the appeal could not be

attended on 20.9.2017 when the case was finally heard by

the CIT(Appeals) after refusing to grant any further

adjournment to the assessee and was decided by the

CIT(Appeals) on the basis of evidences and records available

with him. The Ld. counsel for assessee stated that though

admittedly adjournment had been sought time and again by

the assessee on various occasions but on the last occasion

i.e. on 20.9.2017 the Ld. counsel for assessee was in no

position to attend the case being admitted in hospital. The

Ld. counsel for assessee pleaded that in the interest of

justice the assessee be granted an opportunity of hearing so

as to present its case before the CIT(Appeals). The Ld.

counsel for assessee stated at Bar that it would fully

cooperate in the appellate proceedings and seek no further

adjournment.

the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee during

appellate proceedings, the granting of further opportunity

of hearing before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) was not warranted

and justified.

have also gone through the orders of authorities below.

Undisputedly, the assessee has not cooperated in the

appellate proceedings seeking adjournment on various

occasions as detailed at para 3.2 of the order of the

CIT(Appeals) also. We also take note of the fact that on the

last date of hearing i.e. 20.9.2017 when again adjournment

was sought by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) refused the

same in the light of the frequent adjournments sought

earlier and thereafter, proceeded to decide the case. Now

taking note of the fact that the assessee has adequately

demonstrated before us that for reasons beyond its control

the hearing of the appeal could not attended on one

occasion and also on the last date of hearing, and further

considering that no prejudice would be caused to the

Revenue nor would the assessee derive any undue

advantage if the assessee is granted a fresh opportunity of

hearing before the CIT(Appeals), we consider it fit, in the

interest of justice , to restore the appeal back to the

CIT(Appeals) to decide the same afresh after giving due

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We may add that

the assessee is directed to take due care to assist in

expediting the hearing of appeal at the earliest, failing

which the CIT(Appeals) would be at liberty to dispose off

the appeal as he deems fit. .

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 20th April, 2018

*Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh