Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
None has appeared for the assessee inspite of repeated notices and listing of appeal. Therefore Ld. DR was heard who supported the order of Ld. Tax authorities below.
3. The record shows that assessee had challenged the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2016 before Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A)-15 dismissed the appeal observing that despite issuance of 7108.Del.2019 Vinod Wahi various notices, non-appeared for the assessee. Therefore, applying the ratio in CIT(A) vs. Multi Plan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) dismissed the appeal and at the same time observing that as no further details are available, the additions made are sustained.
The record shows assessee has claimed that his Authorised Representative, Sh. N. K. Kaushik, CA was suffering from cancer and had expired on 15.03.2020 and as assessee was resident of Germany, so he was not aware of ongoing proceedings.
In the light of facts appearing from record the ends of justice require giving assessee an opportunity to contest on merits. Also for the reason that there is an error in dismissal of appeal in limine for non-appearance and also sustaining the additions for want of evidence. The impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside for statistical purposes and the assessee is given opportunity to appear before Ld. CIT(A) to put across the case on merits and Ld. CIT(A) after giving opportunity of hearing, shall pass order on merits. Consequently, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th March, 2023.