M/S KRISHAN CHAND AGRO PVT. LTD.,SUNAM vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, SANGRUR

ITA 1090/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 March 2018AY 2010-113 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard. This was done in the interest of justice, despite the assessee's defiance of notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance and adjournments. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, again with no appearance from their side.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

CIT v. Tollaram Hassomal
153 Taxmann 532 · 2008 · HC
70 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCHES ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Hearing: 05/03/2018Pronounced: 05/03/2018

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Patiala dt. 05/04/2017.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

That on facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the CIT(A) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte. 2. That on facts and in circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the rejection of books of account maintained in the regular course of business.

That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the purchases of rice bran and rice bran oil as bugus.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) is not justified in bringing to charge the peak credits in the accounts of various parties from whom rice bran and rice bran oil were purchased though the payments to all the parties were made by account payee cheques.

That the Id. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,75,43,181/- on account of alleged over statement of cost of rice bran and rice ) bran oil.

That the Id A.O is not justified in upholding the estimation of yield at 14.5% as against 12.65% declared by the assesse without any basis or reference of any

comparable case and ignoring the past history of the case and without prejudice' not considering reasonableness thereof.

That the Id. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition on account of VAT although the same was duly paid by the appellant on purchases made.

That the Id. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order of the Id. A.O in restricting the allowance of salary paid to Mehak Singla to Rs. 15,000/- per month against Rs. 30,000/- actually paid by the appellant.

Before the Ld. CIT(A) when the appeal was fixed for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee . The hearings as per details given below were allowed to the appellant:

Date of issue of Notice Remarks Date fixed for hearing/ adjourned date 15.04.2014 08.05.2014 None attended 16.07.2014 28.07.2014 None attended 22.08.2014 08.09.2014 Sought Adjournment 19.11.2014 Sought Adjournment 09.12.2014 23.12.2014 None attended 31.12.2015 11.01.2016 None attended 12.01.2016 25.01.2016 None attended 08.02.2016 29.02.2016 Sought Adjournment 09.03.2016 None attended 16.05.2016 08.06.2016 None attended 13.07.2016 20.07.2016 None attended 02.08.2016 10.08.2016 None attended 16.08.2016 29.08.2016 None attended 04.10.2016 17.10.2016 None attended 20.10.2016 04.11.2016 None attended 07.11.2016 18.11.2016 None attended 30.11.2016 09.12.2016 Sought Adjournment 16.12.2016 29.12.2016 None attended 01.02.2017 02.03.2017 None attended 08.03.2017 21.03.2017 None attended

All hearing notices were sent to him on the address mentioned in the form No. 35. In response to most of the notices counsel of the assessee didn't appear nor filed any written argument and in response to other the notices he sought adjournments. Thus, no submissions with regard to the grounds of appeal were ever filed. This lead to the inescapable conclusion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the Ld. CIT disposed of the case on the basis of material on record.

Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Tollaram Hassomal (2006) 153 Taxman 532 (M.P.)

It is observed that the matter has been decided ex –parte by the Ld. CIT(A). since the opportunity of being heard was not available to the assessee, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate after according due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The defiance to the notices issued is viewed seriously, however the interest of justice we restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh. And we believe that the assessee will not belay the confidence reposed upon and will not abuse the opportunity given while submitting compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 05/03/2018 AG

Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →