Surat, Delhi V. ACIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi

ITA 1824/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi, which were dated 17.12.2021 and 17.01.2022. The appeals were consolidated due to the similarity of issues involved. The primary contention of the assessee was the ex-parte nature of the appellate order and the substantial additions made to their income, which they argued were already accounted for in their books. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals summarily due to non-compliance by the assessee with the notices issued. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case and thus remanded the matter back for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131650 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 1824/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 1826/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Surat, 72/136, Siraspur Village, New Delhi-110042 Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DHKPS0665D Assessee by : Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 23.05.2023 ORDER 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. 2. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. 3. In ITA No. 1824/Del/2022, 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. ITA Nos. 1824 & 1826/Del/2022 Surat 2 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. ITA Nos. 1824 & 1826/Del/2022 Surat 3 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.” 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 23/05/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*