9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1709 - AT - Income TaxGranting one more opportunity before the CIT(A) - assessee failed to put in appearance before the CIT(A) and comply with his requisition so that the appeals of the assessee could be disposed of by him on merits considering the submissions of the assessee - Held that - To render substantial justice to the assessee, an opportunity should be granted to him. However, we are alive to the fact that the assessee did not avail the opportunities allowed to him by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). Hence, we impose a cost of ₹ 5,000/- for each year on the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit the cost within 15 days from the date of this order and file copy of the challan with the CIT(A) and also a copy of the same to the Tribunal. The CIT(A) is directed to dispose of the appeals of the assessee as early as possible. With these directions, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) 2. Validity of the order under Section 127 of the Act 3. Compliance with Section 153A and 153D of the Act 4. Estimation of net profit 5. Treatment of agricultural income 6. Additions as undisclosed income 7. Additions as interest income and income from other sources 8. Allowance of deductions under Chapter VI-A 9. Credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) 10. Penalty proceedings under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO): The assessee contended that the assessment orders passed by the DCIT were without jurisdiction, arguing that the Income-tax Officer, Khurda Ward, Khurda had jurisdiction over the case. The Tribunal noted the failure of the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to an ex parte order. The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A) to ensure substantial justice, imposing a cost of ?5,000/- for each year on the assessee for non-compliance. 2. Validity of the Order under Section 127 of the Act: The assessee argued that the order under Section 127 transferring the case was illegal as no opportunity was provided as required under Section 127(2). The Tribunal did not specifically address the validity of the Section 127 order but allowed the assessee to present this argument before the CIT(A) in the remanded proceedings. 3. Compliance with Section 153A and 153D of the Act: The assessee claimed that the assessment orders under Section 153A were invalid as the statutory approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax was not annexed. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise this issue before the CIT(A) in the remanded proceedings, emphasizing the need for the assessee to cooperate fully. 4. Estimation of Net Profit: The assessee contested the DCIT's estimation of net profit at 10% of the total turnover, arguing it was arbitrary and without any material basis. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to present evidence and arguments regarding the reasonableness of the profit estimation before the CIT(A) in the remanded proceedings. 5. Treatment of Agricultural Income: The assessee argued that the DCIT erroneously treated agricultural income as income from other sources. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to provide evidence supporting the claim of agricultural income in the remanded proceedings before the CIT(A). 6. Additions as Undisclosed Income: The assessee challenged various additions made by the DCIT as undisclosed income, including specific amounts for different assessment years. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to contest these additions before the CIT(A) with appropriate evidence during the remanded proceedings. 7. Additions as Interest Income and Income from Other Sources: The assessee disputed the additions made by the DCIT as interest income and income from other sources, arguing they were made without proper application of mind. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to challenge these additions before the CIT(A) in the remanded proceedings. 8. Allowance of Deductions under Chapter VI-A: The assessee claimed that the DCIT erred in not allowing deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to present this claim before the CIT(A) during the remanded proceedings. 9. Credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS): The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to give credit for TDS while computing the total income. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise this issue before the CIT(A) in the remanded proceedings. 10. Penalty Proceedings under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act: The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings initiated by the DCIT were a clear case of non-application of mind. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to contest the validity of these penalty proceedings before the CIT(A) during the remanded proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal remanded the appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to dispose of them expeditiously, allowing the assessee to present all arguments and evidence. The assessee was directed to deposit a cost of ?5,000/- for each year within 15 days and file a copy of the challan with the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
|
