Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 17.12.2021 and 17.01.2022.
Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order.
In , the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the order passed by CIT (A) - 29, New Delhi is contrary to facts and bad in law.
2 & 1826/Del/2022 Surat 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the assessment order by passing an ex-parte appellate order without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
2.1 That the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is not in accordance with the law since the CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and also failed to give specific findings on the grounds raised in appeal.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.21,03,84,270/- made in the assessment order on account of cash deposited in the bank account.
3.1 That CIT (A) failed to consider that the cash deposited in the bank account was represented by cash balance as per books of accounts and that the same had emanated out of cash sales which was already reckoned as income in the P&L account of the appellant for A.Y. 2017-18.
3.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs.21,03,84,270/- made in the assessment order by treating the credits in the Bank Account as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3.3 That the action of the CIT (A) in upholding the addition amounts to double addition as the cash deposited which is emanated out of sales was already offered as income in the P&L account of the appellant.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was not justified in upholding an estimated addition of Rs.31,97,29,048/- by treating 20% of the total turnover of Rs. 159,86,45,242/- as net profit of the appellant.
4.1 That the CIT (A) failed to give any independent finding with regard to the above addition and the appellate order merely upholds the addition made in the assessment order.
3 & 1826/Del/2022 Surat 4.2 That the CIT (A) failed to consider that in the absence of rejection of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer by finding specific defects in the books of accounts, no estimated net profit can be made.”
Owing to failure of the assessee on five occasions to comply with the notices issued, an ex-parte order has been passed by the ld. CIT(A) summarily dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Before us, it was submitted that the assessee could not present before the ld. CIT(A) owing to unavoidable personal contingency and prayed that given an opportunity due compliance would be made before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR opposed to the plea of the assessee in principle.
We find that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee and the order is passed on merits of the case. Hence, we remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits. The revenue authorities would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in compliance to the notices issued from time to time.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/05/2023.