Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4%
 
 
« From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

The Apex Electronics, Patiala Vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Patiala
May, 27th 2014
            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             CHANDIGARH BENCHES `A' CHANDIGARH


         BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
                MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER


                               ITA No.280/CHD/2014
                              Assessment Year: 2009-10


     The Apex Electronics,             Vs.            The ITO,
     Patiala                                          Ward-4, Patiala

     PAN No. AALFA5027C


     (Appellant)                                              (Respondent)

                    Appellant By              : Shri Tej Mohan Singh
                    Respondent By             : Shri Akhilesh Gupta

                    Date of hearing       : 19.05.2014
                    Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2014


                                      ORDER


PER T.R.SOOD, A.M.


        This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.1.2013

of Ld. CIT (Appeals), Patiala.



2.      In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:-

              1.    That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
                    has erred in law in upholding the framing of the
                    assessment    ex-parte       without     affording   proper
                    opportunity which is against the Principals of Natural
                    Justice and as such the assessment framed is illegal,
                    arbitrary and unjustified.





              2.    That admittedly the assessee firm was not available at
                    the address where the notice was being served and as
                    such the passing of an order without service of notice
                    is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
                                                                                   2



            3.    That   without   prejudice    to   the   above,   the   Ld.
                  Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in
                  law as well as on facts in upholding the enhancement
                  of sales to Rs. 19,50,00,000/- as against declared at
                  Rs. 18,94,53,975/- and thereafter applying net profit
                  rate of 2% resulting in an addition of Rs. 39,00,000/-
                  which is arbitrary and unjustified.


            4.    That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
                  (Appeals) is erroneous, arbitrary opposed to law and
                  facts of the case and is, thus, untenable.


3.    The brief facts of the case are that during assessment proceedings it was

pointed out that certain disputes were going on between the parties and that is

why the compliance could not be made to various enquiries.          Ultimatel y, the

assessment order was passed wherein the income of the assessee was estimated.

Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and notice was

issued in the name of the firm at 90, Mansahia Colony, Patiala, which was the

address given in the appeal memorandum but the notice was refused, therefore,

the Ld. C IT(A) decided the appeal on ex. parte basis and confirmed the estimate

made by the Assessing Officer.



4.    Before us, the affidavit of Shri Achhru Kumar Singla has been filed in

which it is stated that because of serious dispute with Shri Tejinder Pal Bhalla

who is also one of the partner and whose address was given before C IT(A)

wrongl y refused to accept the notice.         Another affidavit of Shri Pardeep

Dhawan S/o Late Shri Krishan Lal who was also partner has also been filed

stating the same facts. The Ld. Counsel mainl y submitted that there was serious

dispute and that is why proceedings could not be attended before the CIT(A).

He further submitted that he is ready to present himself before CIT(A) and

receive notice so that proceedings could be attended.


5.    On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of CIT(A).
                                                                                       3







6.    After considering the rival submissions, we find that assessee could not

attend the proceedings because of the refusal to receive notice by one of the

partner. Since it becomes clear from     the affidavit and other documents filed

before us that some disputes are going between partners, in our opinion, the

assessee should not suffer because of the non-cooperation of one of the partner

and therefore, in the interest of justice we set aside the order of Ld. C IT(A) and

remit the matter back to his file. The Ld. Counsel is directed to appear before

the CIT(A) and request for an appropriate date for which he may receive the

notice and attend proceedings.


7.    In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.


      Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21.05.2014



               Sd/-                                    Sd/-
 (SUSHMA CHOWLA)                                 (T.R.SOOD)
  JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMER
Dated : 21 s t May, 2014
Rkk

Copy to:
  1.     The Appellant
  2.     The Respondent
  3.     The CIT
  4.     The CIT(A)
  5.     The DR


                                                                          By Order

                                                                          Asstt Registrar
                                                                       ITAT, Chandigarh

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions