2021 (2) TMI 263 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 68 - genuineness of the credit could not be proved - No proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that this case has to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer as no adequate opportunity was given to the assessee. The Assessing Officer states that the summons was issued u/s. 131 of the Act. There is no record to show that these summons/notices were served. The Assessing Officer concluded, on the basis of surmises and conjectures that, the transactions were not genuine. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. But we find that notice of hearing was not served on the assessee. This is violation of principles of natural justice. We find that this bench of the ITAT in all such cases has been restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing of appeal and condonation
2. Addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act
3. Lack of opportunity for the assessee during assessment

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 152 days, and a petition for condonation was submitted. The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the petition, accepted that the delay was due to a sufficient cause and thus condoned the delay, allowing the appeal.

2. The assessing officer made an addition u/s. 68 of the Act regarding the share capital raised by the company, as the directors of the share applicant companies and the assessee company did not appear in response to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

3. The Tribunal noted that there was a lack of proper opportunity for the assessee during the assessment process. It was found that the Assessing Officer did not serve the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act to the directors, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. Citing precedents and guidelines, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and directed a de novo assessment by the Assessing Officer after giving the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity to present their case in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.