Hi-Tech Force, Chandigarh V. ITO Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

ITA 470/CHANDI/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Hi-Tech Force against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh, for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issues in the appeal included the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), disallowances made under sections 36(i)(iii) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, and the procedural handling of notices due to the assessee's change of business address. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's representative during the hearing but proceeded to decide on the merits based on the submissions of the Revenue's representative. The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-appearance was likely due to a change in address and not a deliberate act to avoid proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127477 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 43B; 133(6); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 470/CHD/2022 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hi-Tech Force, Plot No.1, VIP Road, Near Maya Garden, Phase 1&2, Zirakpur. बनाम VS The ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh. थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAEFH7072F अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : None (Adjournment Application) राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, Sr.DR तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28.06.2023 उदघोषणा क तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 आदेश/ORDER PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2013-14 against the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh. The following grounds have been taken : 1. That the order of Learned C.l.T. (Appeals) is bad and against the facts and Law. 2. That the Learned C.l.T (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition made u/s 144 of the Act in ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT (Appeals). 3. That the Learned C.l.T. (Appeals) has erred in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding the disallowance u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of advances of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- made. ITA 470/CHD/2022 A.Y.2013-14 Page 2 of 4 4. That the Learned C.l.T. (Appeals) has erred in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding the disallowance u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 30,30,226/- on for business purpose. 5. That the Learned C.l.T. (Appeals) has erred in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding the disallowance u/s 43B amounting to Rs. 11,22,241/- for showing TDS and VAT payable in the Balance Sheet of the appellant firm. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. An adjournment application by the ld. Counsel for the assessee was placed on record seeking adjournment in the case stating that the Paper Book in the case is under preparation. However, finding that the matter can be proceeded with in the absence of the assessee, the adjournment application was rejected and the case was proceeded with to be decided on merits, on hearing the ld. DR. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 declaring income at Rs.10,36,409/- which was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2014 which was duly served upon assessee on 09.09.2014. Notice u/s 142(1)/143(2) alongwith questionnaire was issued on 17.07.2015 which was not served upon the assessee due to shifting of business premises. Again notices and questionnaire were issued on 17.08.2015 through Speed Post, which were ITA 470/CHD/2022 A.Y.2013-14 Page 3 of 4 again received back undelivered with the remarks ‘left’. Again they were sent through Inspector who reported that business of the assessee had been shifted to some unknown place. Thereafter, information u/s 133(6) was called for from the companies with whom the assessee carried out business activities like CBC Technologies, Chennai. They informed the business premises of the assessee to be at Plot No.209, Industrial Area-I, Panchkula. Finally, the notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued to the assessee at the given address. But the assessee did not attended the assessment proceedings nor any submission/documents were furnished. Accordingly, the AO made computation at Rs.72,88,876. 4. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A), who, by virtue of the impugned order, passed exparte qua the assessee, upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant findings in para 8.2 of his order are reproduced hereunder : “8.2 HELD: I have considered the facts of the case. Assessee has stated that he is having documentary evidence to prove that the said payment was made before filing of return of income and he is having all the documents and the same will be placed under rule 46A. However, neither he has placed any additional evidence nor any one from the firm ever appeared during appellate proceedings. Fact of the matter is that the assessee has shown TDS & VAT payable totaling to Rs. 11,22,241/- and no evidence has been filed that he has paid the said amount within due time. Hence, I am compelled to hold that the AO has rightly disallowed the said payable expense u/s 43B of the Act. The ground of appeal No.3 is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” ITA 470/CHD/2022 A.Y.2013-14 Page 4 of 4 5. We have heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The absence of the assessee before the authorities below appears to have come about due to change in address. Otherwise, the assessee cannot be said to stand to gain anything by knowingly not pursuing its own case. Thus, in the interest of substantial justice, in our considered opinion, the matter needs re-examination by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine and decide the matter in accordance with law after given the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04 th July,2023. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (A.D.JAIN ) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸/ The Appellant 2.灹瀄यथ牸/ The Respondent 3.आयकर आयु猴/ CIT 4.िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च瀃डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5.गाड榁 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar