IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH ` F', NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No.4808 /Del/2010
Assessment year : 2007-08
M/s. Pratap Silicamet (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO, Ward 14(2),
101, Sewak Chamber I, New Delhi
2099/38, Naiwala, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi
GIR / PAN:AADCP3715D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri R. S. Adlakha, Adv.
Respondent by : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 20.07.2015
Date of pronouncement : 22.07.2015
ORDER
PER J. S. REDDY, AM:
This is an appeal filed by assessee directed against the order of Ld.
CIT(A) XVII, New Delhi dated 25.08.2010 for the Assessment Year 2007-
08 on the following grounds:
"1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal of the
assessee that too without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and
without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of
Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.80,00,000/- on account of share
capital received more so when the amount was received before the
commencement of business of the assessee.
2 ITA No.4808/Del/2010
3. That In any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.
CTT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making the impugned
addition is illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of
Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.18,05,500/- (i.e. 20% of
90,27,500/-) on account of alleged cash payment U/S 40A(3) by
recording incorrect facts and findings and without giving adequate
opportunity of hearing.
5. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.
CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making the impugned
addition is illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of
Ld. AO making addition of Rs4,997/- being difference of preliminary
expenses by treating it as capital expenditure.
7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making
the impugned
additions/disallowances and in framing the impugned order which is
unjustified, void ab initio and against the principles of natural justice
and by recording incorrect facts and findings and without giving
adequate opportunity of hearing and the same is not sustainable on
various legal and factual grounds."
2. The assessee is a company dealing in stock in shares. In the return of
income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 filed on 29.09.2007, the assessee
declared income of Rs.4,720/-. The A.O. completed assessment u/s 143(3)
determining total income of assessee at Rs.98,15,247/-. Aggrieved, the
assessee carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate authority disposed
of the case ex-parte, for the reason that the assessee had not attended hearing
despite several notices. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
3. We have heard Ld. A.R. Shri R. S. Adlakha on behalf of assessee and
Ld. D.R. Shri Vikram Sahay on behalf of revenue. On a close perusal of the
3 ITA No.4808/Del/2010
order of first appellate authority we observe that papers on record and
documentary evidence were not considered while adjudicating the case ex-
parte. The assessee has also not cooperated with the first appellate authority
in the appellate proceedings. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated
before us, as to why the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A).
Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of
justice will be met if the appeal is set aside to the file of first appellate
authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee shall
cooperate in disposing off the appeal with the first appellate authority. As
the earlier notices have not been responded to by the assessee, we direct the
assessee to present itself before the first appellate authority on 07.09.2015
and obtain notice of hearing and thereafter cooperate in the disposal of
appeal.
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July 2015.
Sd./- Sd./-
( I. C. SUDHIR) (J. S. REDDY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date: 22nd July, 2015
Sp
Copy forwarded to:-
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.
5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
True copy.
4 ITA No.4808/Del/2010
By Order
(ITAT, New Delhi).
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation
1 Draft dictated on 20/7 Sr. PS/PS
2 Draft placed before author 21/7 Sr. PS/PS
Draft proposed & placed before the
3 JM/AM
Second Member
Draft discussed/approved by Second
4 AM/AM
Member
5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 22/7 Sr. PS/PS
6 Kept for pronouncement 22/7 Sr. PS/PS
7 File sent to Bench Clerk 23/7 Sr. PS/PS
Date on which the file goes to Head
8
Clerk
9 Date on which file goes to A.R.
10 Date of Dispatch of order
|
