आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

O R D E R

PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05.01.2024 for the AY 2011-12.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :

“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to provide clarification/ file evidences required and take necessary action with respect to the deficiency letters issued.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant had a reasonable and sufficient cause for not responding to the deficiency letters issued and another sufficient opportunity ought to have been given to take necessary action.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the basis of merit rather than dismissing the appeal on the reason of non-

payment of an amount equal to the amount of advance tax payable.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non- payment of advance tax without considering the fact that the appellant company has incurred loss for the Asst. year under consideration which is clearly evident from the Profit & Loss account of the company submitted in the Paperbook filed by the assessee after which the Ld. CIT(A) had passed a Remand Report.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal on the basis of merits and ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in passing the Assessment order u/ s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dt. 14.12.2018 by not providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the appellant to represent the case. Factual ground

7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in considering the fact that the assessee, being a private limited company, regularly gets its books of accounts audited by a Qualified Chartered Accountant u/ s 44AB and no discrepancies were found by the chartered accountant with regard to the books of accounts maintained by the assessee.

8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in estimating the income of the assessee at 12% of the contract receipts without considering the Audit report, which is incorrect and against the principles of natural justice.

9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO cannot make an addition under the head income from other sources after estimating the business income at 12%, which is invalid and bad in law.

10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in allowing the TDS credit of Rs. 74,03,725/- instead of actual TDS credit of Rs. 75,55,306/- which is available in Form 26AS while making the assessment.”

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee company is engaged in execution of infrastructure projects and government contracts. The assessee company had not filed its return of income for A.Y .2011-12 despite having contract receipts to the tune of Rs.33,76,72,960/- as per Form 26AS. Based on the information available with this office, the case was re-opened for scrutiny and notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated

21.03.2018 was served on the assessee.

3.1. During the course of assessment, Assessing Officer found from Form 26A