SAURER EMBROIDERY SYSTEMS (AS KNOWN AS SIPL TEXTILES PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 22(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2794/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 October 2023AY 2014-15Bench: us. None present on behalf of the assessee. We have head ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records. 5. Upon careful consideration, we find that AO has issued notice on 16.12.2016 for compliance on 16.12.2016. This is very short time which was granted to assessee for compliance. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue the file to the AO. AO shall make proper enquiry and thereafter pass an order as per law. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purp3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the notice issued by the AO provided an unreasonably short time for compliance. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for proper inquiry and a fresh order.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 9,00,266/- on account of unsubstantiated creditors, Bharat Sales Corporation and Mahavir Enterprises. The AO had issued a notice for compliance on the same day it was issued, which the assessee could not comply with.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO was justified when the notice issued for compliance was practically impossible to adhere to due to the short notice period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.09.2023

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi dated 07.02.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The only ground of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and under the provision of law the ld. Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.9,00,266/- in respect of two parties i.e. Bharat Sales Corporation and Mahavir Enterprises as notices issued on 16.12.2016 for 16.12.2016 remained unserved.”

./2019 3. The assessee is engaged in the business as manufacturers, buyers, sellers, importers, exporters, distributors, processors and dealers of embroidery/ embroidered and other textiles and other related goods and merchandise. In the assessment order, AO made addition of Rs.9,00,266/- in respect of two parties i.e. Bharat Sales Corporation and Mahavir Enterprises and noted that notice was issued on 16.12.2016 for compliance on 16.12.2016. But the same remained uncomplied. AO concluded in the order that assessee has failed to substantiate the creditors i.e. Bharat Sales Corporation and Mahavir Enterprises. In these circumstances, AO made addition which was upheld by the ld. CIT (A).

4.

Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. None present on behalf of the assessee. We have head ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records.

5.

Upon careful consideration, we find that AO has issued notice on 16.12.2016 for compliance on 16.12.2016. This is very short time which was granted to assessee for compliance. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue the file to the AO. AO shall make proper enquiry and thereafter pass an order as per law.

6.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of October, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →