SH. SANJEET SINGH PROP .,MOGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MOGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 42/ASR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 September 2022AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity as the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence and submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding disallowances and additions made by the AO. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) failed to consider additional evidence and submissions, denying a reasonable opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering additional evidence and submissions, thereby denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Hearing: 21.09.2022Pronounced: 23.09.2022

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Ludhiana, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal no.12/ROT(75)/IT/CIT(A)-4/LDH/2015-16, date of order 28.09.2018, the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2012-13.The impugned order was originated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Moga, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act date of order 31.03.2015.

2.

The assessee filed the petition with delay of 30 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay with proper reasoning. The reason for delay was the illness of the assessee. The delay for 30 days is condonedwith consent of the ld. Sr. DR.

3.

Assessee has raised the following grounds which are reproduced as below:-

1. That the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by upholding the disallowance of Rs. 44331/-u/s. 36(1) (iii) in respect of Advances given by Assessee to his wife who is also in the business of Cable Operator and this is very much for the purposes of business of the Assessee.

2. That the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by upholding the disallowance of Rs. 408440/- u/s. 36(1) (iii)

3. That the Learned CIT (A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case by upholding the addition of Rs. 750000/- on account of Cash Credit from uncle of the Assessee inspite of the fact that identity as well as genuiness of the transaction had been proved .

4. That the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by upholding the addition as pointed out in point no. 3 above inspite of admitting the additional evidence but yet not mentioning any thing in the order regarding remand report of the learned A.O. on the additional evidence admitted.

5. The appellant craves leave to and permission of Hon’ble Bench of ITAT to add to or alter any of the grounds of appeal at any time up to final decision of the appeal.

6. The appellant craves leave and sanction of Hon’ble Bench of ITAT to file additional evidence, if so required for proper prosecution of the case, based on facts and circumstances, which has not been or could not be adduced before lower authorities and CIT (A) either because proper and sufficient opportunity was not provided or because it was not solicited its need was not appreciated.

7. The order passed by Ld. A.O. and CIT (A) be set aside as null and void and/ or such other relief as your honor may deem fit, under the circumstances of the case, be granted.

8.

The Delay in Filing the Appeal may also be condoned by the Hon’ble Bench for which a separate request letter has been annexed.”

4.

The brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) with addition u/s 36(1)(iii) amount of Rs.44,331/- and disallowance of interest amount of Rs.4,08,440/-, the addition u/s 68 amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO.

5.

Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

6.

The ld. Counsel argued and first pointed out the ground no. 4 of appeal. The grievance of the assessee was that the remand report under Rule 46A of Income tax Rule,1962, was called for by the appellate authority. But the said report was not taken of cognizance during passing the appeal order. The assessee made submission before the ld. CIT(A) which is annexed in paper book page no. 1 to 7 but the submission was not taken in cognizance by the ld. CIT(A) during passing the order. So, the reasonable opportunity of the assessee is denied.

7.

The ld. Sr. DR argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities.

8. We heard the rival submission and consider the documents filed by the ld. Counsel which is in APB page no. 1 to 38 and which is kept in the record. The assessee submitted the documents and prayed for cognizanceof evidence before the ld. CIT(A) but the reasonable opportunity was denied during passing the order by the ld. CIT(A). We direct that the assessee should get further opportunity to substantiate its claim before the appellate authority. We set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanations submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by ld. CIT(A) and adjudicated by him on merits in accordance with law. We order accordingly.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2022

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →