2012 (12) TMI 326 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses claim on lack of hearing opportunity, remands for fresh examination

M/s. Pariwar Chemicals P. Ltd., Vidisha Versus ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

M/s. Pariwar Chemicals P. Ltd., Vidisha Versus ACIT-3(1), Bhopal - TMI Issues:1. Opportunity of being heard not provided to the assessee.2. Confirmation of additions made under various sections of the Act.3. Failure to produce necessary details before the Assessing Officer.4. Compliance with notices issued to the assessee.Analysis:1. The first issue revolves around the contention of the appellant regarding the opportunity of being heard not being effectively provided despite a change in management. The appellant argued that notices were not responded to due to the change in management. However, the tribunal found that various notices were indeed issued to the appellant through speed post, providing ample opportunity for the appellant to be heard. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the ground of appeal related to this issue.2. The second issue concerns the confirmation of additions made under different sections of the Act, such as sundry creditors, unsecured loans, disallowances under section 40(a)(ia), and adhoc additions. The appellant claimed that necessary evidences were submitted before the CIT(A), but the Assessing Officer made lump sum additions due to the lack of produced books of accounts or vouchers. The tribunal noted that while the necessary details were not provided during the assessment proceedings, they were later submitted before the CIT(A). The tribunal, emphasizing natural justice principles, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the grounds for statistical purposes.3. The third issue highlights the failure of the appellant to produce essential details before the Assessing Officer, leading to disallowances and additions. Despite submissions made before the CIT(A), the disallowances were maintained due to the inability to prove the identity and creditworthiness of creditors. The tribunal noted the absence of a remand report from the Assessing Officer and emphasized the importance of deciding issues on merit. In line with natural justice principles, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a re-examination, providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to be heard and furnish evidence.4. The final issue addresses the compliance of the appellant with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal agreed with the Senior DR that the appellant did not comply with the notices. As a result, the appellant was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply within the given period would empower the Assessing Officer to make decisions based on available records. The appeal of the appellant was partly allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural requirements.