M/s Shalabh India Ltd., Roorkee V. DCIT, Roorkee

ITA 343/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4621 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R C D AN DE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 343/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 343/DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2012-13) SHALABH INDIA LTD., 490, PURANI TEHSIL ROORKEE AALCS5579C (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CIRCLE ROORKEE (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. C. S. ANAND, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. R. C. DANDE, SR DR ORDER PER R. K. PANDA , AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2015 OF THE CIT(A)-DEHRADUN RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED SEEKING ADJOU RNMENT OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ), WHICH IS AN EX-PARTE ONE, THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A COMPANY AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.28,96,360/-. THE A.O COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT O N A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.48,09,260/- BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE A.O HS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/1 44 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 27 TH MARCH 2015 SINCE THERE WAS NO PROPER COMPLIANCE. T HE ASSESSEE DATE OF HEARING 19.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.09.2017 2 ITA NO. 343/DEL/2016 FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, DUE TO NO N-APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) HE PASSED THE ORDER EX-PARTE GIVI NG PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER TO CIT(A), THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BEING BARRED BY LI MITATION, ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED, BECAUSE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD NOT BE EN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. 2. THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCES ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED, BECAUSE THE SAME WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIO NS/GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE CBDT AND/OR BECAUSE THE ID. A.O. HAD EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION / POWERS BY MAKING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWA NCES, WHICH WERE NOT COVERED BY THE REASONS MENTIONED IN CASS. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, TH E ID CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,15,018/-, WHICH W AS MADE BY THE !D A.O. ON A/C OF ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHAR E MONEY. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, TH E ID CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ID A.O.'S ACTION OF REJECTING THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT/ BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 145(3) AND ADOP TING NET PROFIT RATE OF 1.3%. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, TH E ID CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 13,00,699/- . WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE ID CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,54,017/-, IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, TH E ID CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,97, 178/-, WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ID A.O. ON A/C OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SO URCE . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT DUE TO NON APP EARANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) 3 ITA NO. 343/DEL/2016 DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES, HE PASSED THE OR DER EX-PARTE ON MERIT AND GAVE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT PROPE R TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT ONE FI NAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND NOT TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT UNDER ANY PRETEXT. THE CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVIN G DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDIN GLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF, I.E. ON 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED: 19/09/2017 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: SUCHITRA KAMBLE) 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO. 343/DEL/2016 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 19/08/2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19/08/2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2017 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20.09. 2017 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 0 .09.2017 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 5 ITA NO. 343/DEL/2016