Case Law Details
Deccan Plateau Projects Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal heard an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising from an assessment order dated 22.09.2021 passed under Sections 147, 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Although the assessee had raised multiple grounds of appeal, the principal grievance was that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order without granting proper opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of “audi alteram partem”.
Before the Tribunal, counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had wrongly invoked Section 68 in respect of a sum of Rs.50 lakh received from M/s. Sarvottam Finvest Ltd. The assessee requested that an opportunity be granted to place relevant evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) in support of the transaction if the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal examined the facts and noted that the assessee was a private limited company which had filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs.7,50,302 for Assessment Year 2013-14. The case was selected for reassessment proceedings on the basis of information available with the Department that the assessee had received an advance of Rs.50 lakh from an alleged paper entity, namely M/s. Sarvottam Finvest Ltd.
The Tribunal further observed that despite service of statutory notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee failed to furnish the required details before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.50 lakh under Section 68 and assessed the income at Rs.42,49,698. The assessee challenged the addition before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the appeal was dismissed.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee primarily contended that sufficient opportunity had not been granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) to furnish documents explaining the nature and source of the amount received. The assessee sought an opportunity to produce evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction so as to contest the applicability of Section 68.
Considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal held that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. The Tribunal accordingly remitted the issues raised in the appeal back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, if necessary, obtain a remand report from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. After obtaining comments from the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law.
The Tribunal also directed the assessee to remain vigilant and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments except for reasonable cause. Accordingly, the effective grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 25.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi emanating out of Assessment order dated 22.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Though the assessee has raised as many as 12 grounds of appeal but through Ground No.2 it has been raised that ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without giving opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of “Audi Alteram Partem”.
3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. Assessing Officer erred in invoking section 68 of the Act for the sum of Rs.50.00 lakh received from M/s. Sarvottam Finvest Ltd. He submitted that details shall be filed before ld.CIT(A) if an opportunity is granted by remitting the issues raised in the instant appeal.
4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and declared loss of Rs.7,50,302/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 29.09.2013. Case of the assessee selected for reassessment proceedings on the basis of information in the possession of the Department that assessee has received an advance of Rs.50.00 lakh from alleged paper entity namely M/s. Sarvottam Finvest Ltd. After serving of valid statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act assessee failed to furnish the requisite details before ld. Assessing Officer as a result of which addition u/s.68 of the Act at Rs.50.,00 lakh was made and income assessed at Rs.42,49,698/-. Assessee challenged the addition before ld.CIT(A) but could not succeed.
5. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has only prayed that sufficient opportunity was not granted by ld.CIT(A) to furnish the details which were required to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum. In other words, assessee wanted to furnish evidence to prove the Identity and Creditworthiness of the cash creditor and genuineness of the transaction so that section 68 of the Act is not invoked. Considering the prayer of the assessee and in the larger interest of justice being fair to both the parties, I deem it proper to provide one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee and if required may call for a remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. After obtaining the comments from the assessee, then ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issue in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 03.11.2025.
Author Bio
