M/s AMCO Industries Enterprises P. Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana

ITA 124/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1094 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA DHAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “ए” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा य एवं ी स ु धांश ु ीवा%तव, या'यक सद%य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM ITA NO. 124/Chd/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s AMCO Industries Enterprises P. Ltd. E-161, Phase IV, Focal Point, Ludhiana- Punjab The ITO, W-1(1), Ludhiana Punjab PAN NO: AAHCA2939G Appellant Respondent ! " Assessee by : None # ! " Revenue by : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR $ % ! & Date of Hearing : 02/06/2022 '()* ! & Date of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 26/11/2018 of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh. 2. During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee earlier also whenever the case was fixed for hearing there was no representation from the assessee side, we therefore have no alternative except to decide this appeal exparte after hearing the Ld. DR on merit. 3. Following grounds has been raised in this appeal : 1. That the order announced is bad and against the facts and law of the case. 2 2. That the addition made by the AO as well as confirmed by the CIT(A) by making and confirming the addition of Rs. 14,95,800/- on account of disallowance of interest paid U/s 36(1)(iii) was wrong and against the facts. 3. That the AO as well as CIT(A) was wrong on making and confirming the addition of Rs. 13,07,907/- as sales out of the books of accounts. 4. That the AO as well as CIT(A) was wrong on making and confirming the addition on account of advertisement exp. 5. That the net addition of Rs. 29,12,201/- (Rs. 14,95,800/-, Rs. 13,07,907/- & Rs. 1,08,494/-) has wrongly been framed and liable to the deleted. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed return of income on 29/09/2012 declaring an income of Rs. 17,25,583/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) later on the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 63,35,719/- by making the additions amounting to Rs. 46,10,136/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who passed the impugned order exparte and sustained the addition made by the AO. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was non cooperative and did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) inspite of various opportunities of being heard provided. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had no alternative except to decide the appeal of the assessee exparte. She supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 8. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on the record in the present case, it is noticed that the impugned order has been passed exparte. The Ld. CIT(A) mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order that the opportunities were given to the assessee and authorized representative sought adjournments on some ground or other, 3 thereafter the assessee changed its AR who also sought adjournment. However, no details were mentioned in the impugned order when the assessee or its AR sought adjournment or as to whether there were a reasonable ground to seek adjournment or not. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not bring any material on record to substantiate that the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee before deciding the appeal exparte. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned, unheard as per the maxim, “audi alteram partem”. We therefore keeping in view the principle of natural justice deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/06/2022 ) Sd/- Sd/- स ु धांश ु ीवा%तव एन.के.सैनी, (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ( N.K. SAINI) या'यक सद%य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 02/06/2022 ( + ! , - . - Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 0 1 The CIT(A) 5. - 2 ग 4 5 & 4 5 678 ग9 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. ग 8 : % Guard File