Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.328/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11
M/s Dawn Cottage Emporium, Vs. DCIT, Range-3, Boulevard, Srinagar. Srinagar. [PAN:-AABFD2007M] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Vedanshu Tripathi, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 07.06.2023
ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jammu,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2010-11.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Dy.
I.T.A. No.328/Asr/2015 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11
Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-3, Srinagar, [in brevity ‘ the AO’] order passed u/s 144of the Act.
The assessee has taken the following grounds:
“1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts by confirming addition of Rs. 8,50,000/= made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of rent expense. The addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts by confirming addition of Rs. 65,27,724/= made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of sundry creditor. The addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts by confirming addition of Rs. 99,031/-/= made by The Ld. Assessing Officer on account of customer advance. The addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted.”
I.T.A. No.328/Asr/2015 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11
The assessee filed the appeal with delay of 46 days. The assessee had stated that the appellant was out of station, and he was unable to inform his counsel to file
appeal within stipulated time. Reason of delay is explained. With the consent of ld. Sr. DR, the delay of 46 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, but none appeared on behalf of
assessee. The adjournment petition was filed by the ld. counsel. The issue was mentioned in the adjournment petition which is extracted as below: “The appeal in the above matter is listed for hearing today on the 25, May 2023. Since due to some extreme urgency, I cannot attend today.” 4.1 The ld. AR had not mentioned the proper reason for praying adjournment before the bench. The bench has rejected the adjournment petition of ld. AR.In
view of the above and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld.DR and on the basis of material available on the record.
Brief fact of the case is that the addition was made by the ld. AO by assessment u/s 144 in different heads like disallowed of expenses, addition of sundry creditors and the addition of advance received from the party. Aggrieved
assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal
I.T.A. No.328/Asr/2015 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11
partly and restricted the addition in following manners. For the rent payment amount to Rs.8,50,000/- was duly rejected for non-deduction of TDS, for violation
of section 40(a) (ia). The sundry creditors were duly considered and restricted the amount of Rs.65,27,724/- for non-submission of documents before the authority. The addition related amount to Rs.99,031/- was also lack of evidence before the
revenue authorities. Considering this all the assessee’s additions are duly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) after delivering a speaking order. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us by challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. DR argued in depth and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 7. We heard the submission of revenue and relied on the documents available
in the record. The assessee is running the business in the Kashmir Valley at Srinagar. During assessment proceeding the assessee was denied submitting the documents before the authorities. The appeal order was passed but assessee had not
able to submit the proper documents before the authority for substantiate its claim. We consider the hardship of Kashmir Valley for representation of matter before the revenue authorities. The assessee was denied reasonable opportunity during both the stages of proceeding. In our considered view, we remit back the matter to the
I.T.A. No.328/Asr/2015 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11
ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication of the issues. It is directed that assessee should cooperate the revenue by submitting the evidence related to the claim mentioned in
the bench. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the setting aside proceeding. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 328/Asr/2015is 8.
allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.06.2023 Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order