Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI C.M. GARG
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dura Line India Private Ltd., Vs. ACIT, 7th Floor, Tower Neil, Circle-7(2), Neil Rao Towers, Road No.3, New Delhi. EPIP Phase I, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AABCD4024B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Preeti Goel, AR Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2023 ORDER
PER C.M. GARG, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.02.2020 of the CIT(A)-3, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2016-17.
Apropos ground No.1, the ld. Assessee’s representative submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) has been passed on incorrect interpretation of law and facts and by wrongly stating that the assessee had not complied with the notice dated 10th January, 2020. The ld. AR, drawing our attention to the first appellate order, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the allegation of non-prosecution of appeal without adjudicating the grounds of the Form No.35 of the first appeal keeping aside the submissions and explanation of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not provided due opportunity of hearing before the ld.CIT(A) and the impugned first appellate order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that despite several notices to the assessee, the assessee did not comply with the same, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) had no option, but to adjudicate the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. However, he did not dispute a glaring fact that the ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal in a cryptic manner without properly considering the grounds of the assessee raised in Form No.35 and explanation and submissions of the assessee already on record filed before the AO.
On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, we are of the considered view that in a case the ld.CIT(A) proceeds to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on account of non-compliance of notices, then also, as per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the ld. First appellate authority is duty bound to adjudicate all grounds of appeal by taking into consideration the assessment order as well as evidences and explanation filed by the assessee before the AO during assessment proceedings and all relevant material already available on record. But, in the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing a very cryptic order in para 3.2 only from which it is clearly discernible that the ld.CIT(A) has not properly adjudicated the effective grounds of the assessee raised in Form No.35 and simply dismissed the same in a cryptic manner without considering
AO. In such a situation, we are of the considered view that when the assessee has not been provided due opportunity of hearing by the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal properly, then, we find it just and proper to restore the appeal to the ld.CIT(A) to the first appellate stage for denovo adjudication of appeal after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without being influenced by the earlier first appellate order. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed.
Since, by the earlier part of this order, we have restored the appeal to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, therefore, other grounds of the assessee are not being adjudicated upon.