9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on the assessee as per order u/s 144 has been reduced to Rs. 4.73 Crore by the Ld. AO on account of rectification carried out, as emanating from Ld. AO s letter dated 09.04.2019, the entire addition / disallowances confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) found to be misconceived and under improper appreciation of facts on record. The order of Ld. CIT(A) has no discussion on merits of the issues rather, his attention was totally on the non-compliance on the part of the assessee, shows that Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has decided the issue on ex-parte basis without considering the merits of the issue, in light of the settled judicial precedents on the issue that to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. , therefore, we are of the considered view that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is suffering with error which needs to be corrected by fresh adjudication. Thus as CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal of the assessee on merits, then the matter requires to be restored back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same after due deliberations on the merits. - Shri Ravish So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same is therefore, liable to be deleted. 7. The appellant craves leave to urge, add, amend, alter, enlarge, modify, substitute, delete or withdraw any of the ground or ground and to adduce fresh evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Concisely stated, the assessee is a Private Limited Company, had filed its return of income on 21.08.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 23,35,900/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny through CASS , accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.08.2018 by ITO Ward-3(1), Raipur. Since the case was transferred from the office of ITO, Ward-3(1) to DCIT, circle- 3(1), Raipur, therefore, another notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 19.09.2018. In due course, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessee was requested to submit necessary details as per annexure to the said notice, however, assessee did not comply. Further notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 17.10.2018, 24.10.2018 and 30.10.2018 but again the assessee failed to comply. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 14.11.2018 as final opportunity was issued to the assessee to file necessary replies with supporting evidence by 19.11.2018, bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity the appellant is unable to give either satisfactory explanation with corroborating evidence regarding justification of discloser of turnover as per service tax return or to give any satisfactory explanation regarding taking or accepting loan or deposits other than account payee cheques beyond the threshold limit in contravention to section 269SS or repayment of loan or deposits other than account payee cheques beyond the threshold limit in contravention to section 269T or satisfactory explanation of receipts of share capital or actual value of turnover. Accordingly, l do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO and find the same was justified in as much as the addition being made in accordance with law. Considering the entire conspectus of the case I hold that the appellant has no proper explanation regarding above findings of the AO. Accordingly, all the additions made by e AO in assessment order subject to actual repayment of loan or deposit [ which appears erroneously taken by the AO in assessment order as Rs. 5,10,33,244/- in lieu of Rs. 4,90,89,196/- (3,77,91,196 + 1,12,98,000)] and actual share application money received, stand confirmed and the grounds relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory explanations with corroborative evidence qua the justification of discloser of turnover, loans or deposits other than account payee cheques beyond the threshold limit in contravention to section 269SS and section 269T of the Act. It is further submitted that apart from ignoring the issue of rectification, the Ld. CIT(A) had not commented anything about the merits of the issues, therefore, order of Ld. CIT(A) is absolutely misconceived, bad in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the additions made by Ld. AO shall be deleted. 7. In order to substantiate / rebut against additions / disallowances made by the Ld. AO, Ld. AR has requested for admission for additional evidences for which a paper book containing 214 pages have been furnished before us, against which Ld. Departmental Representative i.e., Ld. CIT-DR has refuted with his strong objections that the assessee could not be provided with the opportunity to furnish such bulky paper book containing all the primary information at this stage before the tribunal, which the assessee had squarely failed to furnish before the Authorities below. 8. Ld. CIT DR, Shri S. L. Anuragi on behalf of the revenue further i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowances confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) found to be misconceived and under improper appreciation of facts on record. The order of Ld. CIT(A) has no discussion on merits of the issues rather, his attention was totally on the non-compliance on the part of the assessee, shows that Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has decided the issue on ex-parte basis without considering the merits of the issue, in light of the settled judicial precedents on the issue that to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. , therefore, we are of the considered view that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is suffering with error which needs to be corrected by fresh adjudication. 12. On the aforesaid issue, this bench has already arrived at a view and have adopted in various decision wherein it is decided that in case Ld. CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal of the assessee on merits, then the matter requires to be restored back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same after due deliberations on the merits. Our decision is further fortified by the ratio of law laid down by Hon ble Mumbai High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... miss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act. 13. In view of aforesaid observations of the Hon ble Bombay High Court, in absence of deliberation on the issues on its merits by the Ld. CIT(A) based on material available on record, in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to restore the present appeal back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Also, on account of non-cognizance of the information regarding reduction of demand through rectification which was furnished by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the matter requires restoration and to be revisited by the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, restored the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, that reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee and liberty to furnish necessary information, explanations, evidence and jurisprudence in support of his contentions in the set aside appellate proceedings. 14. Since, we have restored the matter back to the files of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we refrain ourselves to deal with the grounds of the present appeal on merits for which the assessee is at liberty to assail before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
