BHIM SAIN GUPTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 47(1), NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “ए”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं
ŵी एस įरफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद˟ के समƗ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आअसं.1574/ िदʟी /2024 (िन.व. 2010-11)
Bhim Sain Gupta,
K-736, Gadaipur Road,
Mehrauli, Delhi 110030

PAN: ADKPG-7977-R

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-47(1), New Delhi

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Manish Upneja, Chartered Accountant &

Ms. Sanju Kumari, Advocate

Department by: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
16/04/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
16/04/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 06.03.2024, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring loss of Rs.2,61,92,280/-. Subsequently, assessment for AY 2010-11 was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

2
was issued to the assessee. The AO made following additions while completing the assessment :
i. Rs.1,54,00,000/- under the head Long Term Capital Gains.
ii. Rs.2,25,06,975/- after rejecting assessee's claim on cost of improvements.
iii. Rs.1,69,10,271/- after rejecting assessee’s claim of business loss and treating the same as speculative.
3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s. 147 of the Act, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee. Except for seeking adjournment on two occasions, the assessee did not respond to the other (five) notices. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee, as there was no material to controvert findings of the AO. Hence, present appeal by the assessee.
4. Shri Manish Upneja, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not properly represented in proceedings before the CIT(A), hence, prayed an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A).
5. Per contra, Shri Ashish Tripathi representing the department vehemently opposed assessee's appeal and submitted that multiple opportunities were given to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to make submissions before the CIT(A). The ld. DR prayed for confirming order of the CIT(A) and dismissing appeal of the assessee.
6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. From perusal of impugned order it is evident that seven notices were given by the CIT(A) to the assessee. The assessee did not furnish any reply before the CIT(A). Hence, in the 3
absence of any material to controvert findings of the AO, the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. Considering entire facts of the case and the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
7. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail,
8. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Wedne ay the 16th day of April,
2025. (S RIFAUR RAHMAN)
(VIKAS AWASTHY)
लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 27/06/2025

NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.