BLUE SKY PORTFOLIOS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 75/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 February 2023AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merit and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appeal proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte without a decision on merits. The CIT(A) had issued notices for hearings, but the assessee did not participate. The assessee's grounds of appeal included violations of natural justice and non-speaking orders by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without a speaking order and proper opportunity to the assessee. Whether additions made by the AO on account of share capital and commission were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

Hearing: 31.01.2023Pronounced: 01.02.2023

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/10/2019 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2. New Delhi [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts in passing the order in utter disregard of the statutory provisions contained under section 250(6) of the Act by dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex parte, violating the principles of natural justice.

2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, as the order passed by him is non-speaking and without affording any proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored various judicial rulings, wherein it was held that section 250(6) makes it obligatory for the CIT(A) to pass speaking order deciding the points raised in appeal, stating his reasons for the decision, as such.

4.

The Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in disposing off the appeal ex- parte without allowing sufficient and real opportunity to the appellant to represent the case and hence, the impugned order passed requires to be set-aside/cancelled.

5. That the order of Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law, against facts of the case and equity.

6.

The reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO is based on the information received from investigation wing and there was no material before him to substantiate the allegation contained in the information and therefore initiation of proceedings is bad in law.

7.

That on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,55,03,500/- made by Ld. AO on account of alleged accommodation entry, merely following the investigation report, ignoring the voluminous evidence to the contrary brought on record by the assessee. The addition is made on the basis of conjectures and surmises is treated undisclosed income u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

8.

That on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,55,035/- (Rs. 1,55,03,500/- @1%) made by Ld. AO by making addition on account of commission income at the rate of 1 percent of the transactions.

9.

That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally adjudicated upon.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment order came to be passed on 30/12/2018 against the assessee u/s 147/143(3) of the Act by making addition on account of share capital and share premium u/s 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 1,55,03,500/- and further addition has been made on account of commission of Rs. 1,55,035/-, accordingly, the total income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs.1,57,21,265/- as against returned income of Rs.62,730/- .

4. As against the assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had issued several notices for hearing, but in spite of issuing notices by way of speed post and e-mail, the assessee has not participated in the appeal proceedings. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal limine. It is found that the Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee has not adjudicated the issues involved in the appeal on merit. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de-novo consideration on merit and further direct the assessee to cooperate with the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A). Ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01st February, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →