M/S ANIL INDUSTRIES, Alwar V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, Alwar

ITA 599/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4591 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA JHA J CIT DHK

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 599/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S ANIL INDUSTRIES, F-68, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, KISHANGARH ROAD, KHAIRTHAL, ALWAR. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACFA 1524 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 07/08/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/08/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2018 OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF A.O. IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY CONFIRMING LU MP SUM TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 3.00 LACS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,93,722/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPEN SES. ITA 599/JP/2018_ ANIL INDUSTRIES VS DCIT 2 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND FILES ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24/9/2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 20,95,500/- . IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND MADE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 3.00 LACS AS WELL AS DISALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENDITU RE OF RS. 1,93,722/-. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSE SSMENT MADE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 4,93,722/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED EX PARTE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED NOTICE DATED 06/9/2017 BUT DUE TO INCORRECT ADDRESS, THE SAME WAS NOT DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN TH E LD. CIT(A) ISSUED NOTICE DATED 12/10/2017 AT THE SAME INCORRECT ADDRE SS AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LAST NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 13/2/2018 WAS ADDRESSED TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AT HIS ALWAR ADDRESS FOR THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING FI XED ON 20/2/2018 HUT DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS DELIVERED TO THE AUTHORIZED ITA 599/JP/2018_ ANIL INDUSTRIES VS DCIT 3 REPRESENTATIVE ONLY ON 28/2/22018 WAS DISPATCHED ON 26/2/2018 AND WAS DELIVERED ON 28/2/2018, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING ON 28/2/2018. THUS, DUE TO TH IS REASON THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE EX PA RTE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27/2/2018 PRIOR TO THE LAST NOTICE RECEIVED BY T HE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE LD AR HA S PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG AND PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPO SED TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO PASS EX P ARTE ORDER. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL A S THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE IN SUMMARY MANNER AS UNDER: 3.1 IN THIS CASE, NOTICES U/S 250 WAS ISSUED TO TH E APPELLANT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FIXING THE HEARING ON 19/09/2017, 27/10/2 017 AND 20/02/2018. NO ONE ATTENDED. THEREFORE, I AM CONSTR AINED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 3.2 I HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT NO STATEMENT OF FACTS WAS FILED ALONGWITH FORM NO. 35. ITA 599/JP/2018_ ANIL INDUSTRIES VS DCIT 4 3.3 I ABSENCE OF ANY SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT I N SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS, I HAVE RELIED UPON THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, I SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O.. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLAN TS GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THUS, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON THREE OCCASIONS BUT NONE HAD A PPEARED OR ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FIRST TWO NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SENT ON INCORRECT ADDRESS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THE LAST NOTICE WAS DISPATCHED ONLY ON 26/2/2018 WHICH WAS AFTE R DATE OF HEARING ON 20/2/2018 AND THE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28/2/2018 SUBSEQU ENT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THESE FACTS AN D EXPLANATION AS PUT FORTH BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN A PROPER AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE F URTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE BY THE AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE ON 28/2/2018 FILED A LETTER DATED 4/4/2018 IN THE OFFI CE OF LD. CIT(A) AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 10/4/2018. HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNE D ORDER WAS ALREADY PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, NO COGN IZANCE WAS TAKEN OF THE SAID LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ITA 599/JP/2018_ ANIL INDUSTRIES VS DCIT 5 AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT I TS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE R ECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/08/2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 09 TH AUGUST, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S ANIL INDUSTRIES, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 599/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR