Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Tarun Goyal Vs. ITO, Ward-35(5) 1091, Shiv Motor Market, New Delhi. Kashmere Gate, Delhi – 110 006 PAN AMZPG2141B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.04.2023 Date of pronouncement 11.04.2023 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.01.2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2012-13.
The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading of fabrics. He filed his return for AY 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 1,99,890/-. It was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). The case was selected for scrutiny. Since the notices of hearing were not complied with, the assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act on total income of Rs. 6,33,14,910/- on 27.03.2015. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) made the following additions to the income returned by the assessee: i. Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of claim of deduction under section 80C of the Act. ii. Rs. 1,03,773/- on account of claim of depreciation.
iii. Rs. 28,54,540/- on account of freight. iv. Rs. 3,06,564/- on account of excess claim of expenditure. v. Rs. 4,20,77,014/- on account of difference in figures as per the audited statement of account and as per the return of income. vi. Rs. 1,76,72,842/- on account of peak balance in the bank account.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
3.1 In the statement of facts filed before the Ld. CIT(A), it was, inter-alia stated therein that the case was decided by the Ld. AO ex-parte for the reason, firstly that the assessee was suffering from back pain and the doctors advised him to complete bed rest and secondly, the assessee has not received the notices as the assessee has changed the business premises from 1090, Shiv Motor Market, Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi-110 006 to 230 New Arya Nagar near Bank of Baroda, Ghaziabad, UP.
3.2 It has also been stated therein that there is difference in the figures of audited balance sheet and the figure of ITR as alleged by the Ld. AO but the difference in the figures are due to the mistake of CA or staff of the CA who has mistakenly fed the figures of some other client in the return form.
3.3 As far as not showing bank balance in the balance sheet of the assessee, it was submitted therein that the assessee has disclosed all the entries of bank in his return of income filed for the year under consideration.
The appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that there was non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings. Hence, no interference in the Ld. AO’s observation is called for.
Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under:-
“1. That, learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-party as the appellant was prevented with sufficient cause for non-compliance on the last date of hearing, hence order is against the principles of natural justice.
2. That, learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that all the additions are without any material/basis against the assessee, but merely to punish assessee who could not present his case, but he again sustained all the additions ex-party without considering merits of additions with some purposeful enquiry with proper opportunity more so when additions are high pitched and punitive.
3. That, without prejudice to above and in alternative, on merits learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the facts on the record clearly admitting that figures filled in ITR are incorrect due to mistake of CA/his staff and Id. AO directly collected a copy of B/S from auditor u/s 133(6) corroborating the said fact but still most the additions are made considering said, wrong figure that too arbitrarily by choice to maximize additions.
4. That, ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining huge addition of peak credit in the bank a/c though alleged peak itself is wrong being taken in between transactions of a day against a nominal balance of only Rs. 2,842/- etc., and even without appreciating that ld. AO admitted that assessee is carrying on business in said a/c.
5. That, all the additions are wrong, arbitrary and are without any corroborative material except an apparently wrong filled ITR and declared income is fully backed with audited accounts/evidences. It is, therefore humbly prayed that in the interest of justice, this hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order under question with the directions as deemed fit to Ld. lower authorities to decide ne matter on merits. However in the alternative, it is prayed that the total additions may kindly be deleted after examining the merits for which assessee may kindly be allowed to produce accounts etc.”
Before us also none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 12.08.2021, 02.11.2021 and 11.04.2022, the dates fixed for hearing of the appeal. On the last date of hearing on 06.01.2023, the Authorised Representative of the assessee appeared and requested that the matter be posted for fresh hearing and accordingly the next date of hearing was fixed for 06.04.2023. On 06.04.2023 also none appeared before us. However, the Ld. DR attended and was heard. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte. 3
We have given our careful thought to the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee and arrived at the conclusion that it would be just and fair to remit the case back to the file of the Ld. AO who will serve the notice upon the assessee at his changed address and re-do the assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the orders of the Ld. AO/ CIT(A) are set aside. The Ld. AO is directed to frame the assessment afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.