TRINETRA ALUMINIUM ALLOYS,FARIDABAD V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD

ITA 2427/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Trinetra Aluminium Alloys, which appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the discrepancy between the assessed total income of Rs. 2,52,07,557 and the returned income of Rs. 14,50,630. The appellant challenged the ex-parte order and the jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O., along with the limitation of the proceedings and the addition of Rs. 2,37,56,927 as unexplained income. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, applying the Multiplan decision. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and thus remitted the matter back for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31597 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Multiplan decision
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PARKASH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2427/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2013-14 TRINETRA ALUMINIUM ALLOYS, PLOT NO. 674, SECTOR-69, IMT FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121009 (PAN: AAEFT3928L) VS. ITO, WARD 1(4), NEW DELHI C.R. BUILDING, FARIDABAD, HARYANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 11.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 16.12.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 17.1.2024, relating to assessment year 2013- 14 on the following grounds:- 1) That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at total income of Rs. 2.52,07,557 as against returned income of Rs. 14,50,630 and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax and interest demanded thereon. 2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order 2 | P a g e dismissing the appeal in liminie without passing a speaking order or going into merits of the cause. 3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A O has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction over the case to initiate assessment proceedings and pass impugned order when the statutory and jurisdictional requirements under section 147 to 151 were not fulfilled 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in framing the assessment when the proceedings and order were barred by limitation. 5) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A O has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte assessment order us 144 of the Income Tax Act, that too without giving any opportunity of being heard. 6) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.2,37,56,927/- as unexplained income and that too by vague application of facts and based only on surmises and conjectures. 7) That in any view of the matter and in any case the action of AO in making an addition of Rs. 2,37,56,927/- is bad in law and against the fats and circumstances of the case. 8) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, AO has erred in law and on facts in making the above disallowance without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice. 2. In this case, AO made addition of Rs. 2,37,56,927/- by treating the same as unexplained income u/s. 68/69A of the Act and assessed the income at Rs. 2,52,07,557 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse for non- prosecution by applying Multiplan decision. 3. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 3 | P a g e 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assesse, despite issue of notice, hence, we are deciding the appeal of the assesse exparte qua the assesse. Upon careful consideration, we note that it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order, but he has failed to do so. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 16/12/2024. Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "