M/S HEALTHYWAY IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 351/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2018AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored for a de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's Managing Director was in jail due to criminal cases, leading to ex-parte assessment orders. The Assessing Officer made additions, including double additions on surrendered amounts and entire bank deposits as unexplained. The assessee claimed to have lost books due to police action but later retrieved records.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed due to the Managing Director's incarceration and the subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified, and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity for a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

Hearing: 16.05.2018Pronounced: 16.05.2018

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeals have been preferred by the different but

related assessees against the separate orders of the Commissioner

ITA Nos.351 to 353-Chd-2017-M/s Healthaway Immigration Consultants Pvt ltd & Ors, Chandigarh 2

of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as

CIT(A)] dated 5.12.2016.

The present appeals have been preferred by the different

assessees Corporations, having a common Managing Director namely

Shri Amit Kakkar. ITA No. 351/Chd/2017 is taken as the lead case

for discussion.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our

attention to the impugned order of the Assessing officer passed u/s

144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Ld. Counsel

has submitted that the impugned assessment order is an ex-parte

order. He has further submitted that the assessee was prevented by

sufficient cause for not appearing before the Assessing officer and to

present its case. That certain criminal cases were filed by the police

against the Managing Director of the assessee and that he was in

jail. The Ld. Assessing officer, therefore, had made certain additions

against the assessee including certain doubles additions. The

assessee had already surrendered an amount of Rs. 3.7 crores on

account of certain incriminating documents found at the premises of

the assessee during the survey action. The Assessing officer,

however, not only sustained the addition on behalf of the

surrendered amount but again taken into consideration those

documents found during the search action to make further additions.

Even the Assessing officer made the addition of the entire bank

deposits as unexplained deposits.

The Ld. counsel has further submitted that in appeal before the

Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had submitted the reconciliation of the

ITA Nos.351 to 353-Chd-2017-M/s Healthaway Immigration Consultants Pvt ltd & Ors, Chandigarh 3

accounts and had further submitted that the deposits found in the

bank accounts were business receipts of the assessee. That the entire

deposits did not constitute the income of the assessee. That, though

the CIT(A) had called for the remand report on the additional

evidences submitted by the assessee before him, however, still the

Assessing officer had failed to properly consider the documents and

evidences furnished by the assessee.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that though

the assessee could not submit books of account before the lower

authorities as the same were destroyed and not available due to

police action against the assessee, however, later on, the assessee

has retrieved the records from its computer, hard disk etc. and that

the assessee has completed all the relevant records which are very

much necessary to be looked into for just and proper decision of the

case. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that assessee has already

deposited the entire tax on the surrendered income during the survey

action. Further, that owing to the above circumstances, the assessee

could not present itself before the Assessing officer. That the

assessee be given an opportunity to present its case property before

the Assessing officer.

4.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of

the lower authorities but has been fair enough to admit that no

prejudice will be caused, if Assessing officer, reexamines the entire

record so that actual and real income of the assessee can be taxed. He

has further submitted that in the circumstances, when the entire case

ITA Nos.351 to 353-Chd-2017-M/s Healthaway Immigration Consultants Pvt ltd & Ors, Chandigarh 4

will be open to the Assessing officer, findings, if any, arrived at by the CIT(A) on any issue should not have any bearing and that the assessment of the assessee should be made de novo. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has readily agreed to for the same.

5.

In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing officer. The facts being identical in all the three appeals and in view of the above discussion, the impugned orders of CIT(A) in all the three appeals are hereby set aside and the matter in all the appeals is restored to the file of the Assessing officer for de novo assessment.

6.

In the result, all the three appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 16.05.2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →