JSR LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(4), NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi, dated 15.02.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.

2. (i). On the fact and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard. (ii) That the non appearance before the CIT(A) was on account of reasons beyond the control of the assessee. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving any finding on the merits of the case.

(ii) That the above said addition has been confirmed despite the assessee having all relevant explanation and evidences to prove the identity and credit worthiness of shareholder as well as the genuineness of the transaction.

(iii) That the notice for hearing before the CIT(A) was never received by the assessee.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite the same having been made on the basis of material collected/ statement recorded at the back of the assessee without giving it an opportunity to rebut/ cross examine the same in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by A.O. on account of commission

(ii) That the commission has been charged @ 1.5%, without there being any basis for the same.

7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.

i) Addition on account of Section 68 4,00,00,000/- ii) Addition on account of commission expenses 6,00,000/- iii) Addition per provision of Section 2(22)(e) 1,07,683/- iv) Addition being capital expenses 2,73,849/- 3. Aggrieved against it the assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(Appeals), who vide impugned order dated 15.02.2017 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice of hearing was received by the assessee from the learned CIT(Appeals), as such there could be no representation before the learned CIT(Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal without giving any finding on merit. He prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merit after affording reasonable opportunity

of being heard to the assessee. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has also filed synopsis. For the sake of clarity the same is reproduced as below:

‘Synopsis

“The only request before your honours is to send the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) as no finding on the merits of the case has been given by the ld. CIT(A) in the order passed by him.

Further, to state that the assessee could not present itself before the CIT(A) due to the non receipt of notices of hearing. The assessee company stopped working and opening its office from November, 2015. Also, the company could not receive any notice as the registered office of the company was the residence address of one of the director who had to leave his house along with his family as a result of pressure from the lenders, life threats and other criminal cases lodged against him.

Had the intention of the assessee being to not to present itself before the Id. CIT(A), he would have also avoided presenting himself before the Id Assessing Officer. The following being the circumstances, the assessee therefore request Your Honours to kindly refer the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A)”.

“4.7 The appellant has not substantiate d the grounds raised in appeal and no written submission has been filed. In the absence of any evidence to support the claim of the appellant, the grounds raised in appeal are rejected.”

Order pronounced in open court on 21st April, 2023.