SH. GHULAM NABI MARAZI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), BARAMULLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 190/ASR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the lack of representation from the assessee and the fact that the assessment was completed during a period of insurgency. Considering the hardship, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against additions made by the AO for various expenses and a deduction under Section 80C due to non-submission of proper explanations and documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the additions despite accepting documents, citing lack of proper explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified, considering the assessee's inability to provide complete documentation and explanations during the assessment and appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6),Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

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

Hearing: 18.05.2023Pronounced: 30.05.2023

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),-1, Ludhiana,[in brevity the CIT (A)] order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961[in brevity the Act], for A.Y.

2014-15.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Baramula, [in brevity the AO] order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds: -

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming action of AO by adding Rs. 2,09,878/- on account of Pilferage Expenses. The addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming action of AO by adding Rs. 73,314/- on account of Some Expenses. The addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming action of AO by adding Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of Expenses Claimed against Transport Receipts. The addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted.

4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming action of AO by adding Rs. 1,56,509/- on account of Vehicle Hire Charges. The addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted.

5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming action of AO by adding Rs. 44,928/- on account of Rent received by IOC. The addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted.

6. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & facts by confirming action of AO by adding Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of Deduction u/s 80 C. The addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted.

7.

The Appellant reserves all right to amend, alter, add and modify the grounds of appeal.”

3. Brief fact of the case is thatduring the assessment the expenses under different heads are disallowed due to non-submission of proper explanation before the ld. AO and also the disallowance u/s 80C and 80U was made due to non- availability of the documentary evidence in support of the claim. The total addition was Rs.784,630/- which was added with the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) pointed out that the assessment was completed and assessee was not able to submit the documents before the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the documents. But upheld the addition due to lack of proper explanation before the ld. CIT(A). Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. The ld. AR filed an adjournment petition. But there is no sufficient cause for adjournment. So, the adjournment petition is dismissed by the bench. On perusal of record, we find that the hearing is scheduledon 18/05/2023. Previously the dates were fixed number of times. We find from the record that on dated 25/04/2023the ld. Counsel of the assessee had made written request to fix the date of hearing on 18/05/2023. In view of the above and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose the appealex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the learnedDR and on the basis of material available on the record.

5.

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

6.

We heard the submission of the ld. DR and relied on the orders of revenue authorities. The ad hoc disallowance was made related to pilferage expenses, some expenses on transport vehicle hire charges and repair and maintenance and addition was made on rent received by IOC. Further, the addition was made Rs.1 lac for lack of documents for claiming of deduction u/s 80C. During assessment proceeding the ld. AO was not able to explain the reasons of adhoc disallowance related to assessee. After considering both the orders, it is very much clear that there is a lack of representation by the representative of the assessee. The assessment was completed during insurgency in the Kashmir Valley. Same is not applicable for the appeal order. We consider the hardship of the assessee for representation the matter before the ld. assessing authority. We accept the ground of the assessee and set aside the matter to the ld. AO for further adjudication afresh on the expenses, disallowed. Needless to say, theassessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the ld. AO in set aside proceeding.

More judgments on Section 80C

All 658 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →