Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
M/S Konark Rajhans Pvt. Ltd., Panchkula vs Dcit, Circle, Panchkula on 21 February, 2018
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES 'A', CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1186/Chd/2017
Assessment Year: 2012-13
M/s Konark Rajhans Pvt.Ltd, Vs. The DCIT,
#55. Sector 25, Panchkula
Panchkula
Now at - First Floor, SCO-406,
Sector 20, Panchkula
PAN No.AAECK2405Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Sh. Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CA
Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Date of hearing : 21.02.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.08.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], Panchkula.
2. The assessee is aggrieved by the disallowance made by Assessing officer us 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 6DD on account of cash payments made for purchase of land.
3. The assessee is a builder and developer and for its business activity it purchased certain land from villagers. The assessee made total payment 2 of about Rs. 16 crores as consideration for the purchase of land from different sellers out of which an amount of Rs. 3.34 crores was made in cash. However, considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Assessing officer restricted the addition u/s 40A(3) to the extent of Rs. 1.70 cores. Being aggrieved by the above, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A).
4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) as the address of the assessee was changed and hence, the notices of hearing could not be received by the assessee. That there was change in the management also. Due to these circumstances, the case remained unrepresented before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, passed an ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and that there was a reasonable cause for making the said payments in cash. Ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that assessee may be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) so that it may demonstrate the reasons and justification for making a small portion of the total consideration in cash.
5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, in our view, the interest of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before CIT(A). In view of this, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the same to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say that CIT(A) will give proper opportunity 3 to the assessee to present its case and assessee will present itself before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when called for and would not deliberatel y contribute in delaying the conclusion of the appeal.
7. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 21.02.2018 Rkk Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR