Sunil Kisanrao Bagul, Nashik V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik

ITA 59/PUN/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5694 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2022
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2(22)(e); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.59/PUN/2022 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Kisanrao Bagul, 4610, Bagul Niwas, Ramwadi, Panchavati, Nashik – 422 003 PAN : AEXPB9208E Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Nashik (Appellant) Respondent) आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) on 24-11-2021 in relation to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). After considering the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer (AO), invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Appellant by Shri Pramod Shingte Respondent by Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing 30-03-2022 Date of pronouncement 30-03-2022 ITA No. 59/PUN/2022 Sunil Kisanrao Bagul 2 Act, made an addition of Rs.26.00 lakh treating the loan received by the assessee from Sukiba Management Services Pvt. Ltd., with maximum balance, as deemed dividend. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal. It was requested that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to present its case properly before the ld. first appellate authority so that a legally sustainable decision could be arrived at. Considering the entirety of the facts obtaining in the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I order accordingly. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30 th March, 2022. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दनांक Dated : 30 th March, 2022 Satish ITA No. 59/PUN/2022 Sunil Kisanrao Bagul 3 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. यथ / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. 5. The Pr.CIT concerned वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, प ु णे “SMC” / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 30-03-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 30-03-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member -- JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. -- JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *