Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by CIT(A)-11, New Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2014-15 assessment year is assailed on various grounds including ground No.1 which reads as under :- 1. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming order, by giving partial relief, on the basis of remand report submitted by the AO, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, a must in law, hence, the order so passed u/s. 250 of the Act is unjust, arbitrary and bad in law.
Before proceeding to address the specific grievance of the assessee it is necessary to first address the fact that the assessee had moved an application seeking time. However, said adjournment was withdrawn and the Counsel instead argued the appeal.
Both the parties have been heard.
The relevant facts of the case are that to the assessee’s returned income of Rs.2,65,800/- addition of Rs.29,16,163/- was made. The assessee in the year under consideration sold immovable property of Rs.30 lacs. The assessee was required to explain with evidence the Capital Gain earned as the assessee had not declared the same in the return filed. The said addition was challenged by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that as per para -6.2 page-4 of the order the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences. The copy of remand report was obtained from the Assessing Officer. As per record it was made available to the assessee. It appears that an adjournment was moved however, the assessee ultimately on the next date failed to address the same.
The Ld. Sr. DR also drew attention to para-6.3 to submit that in the remand report the Assessing Officer has considered the reply filed by the assessee by his letter dated 14.06.2018. Considering the evidences available the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.26,47,917/-.
However, he argued that it is a matter of fact that admittedly the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A).
The Ld. AR submitted that the remand report remains unaddressed as the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). It was submitted that it is not a case that the assessee has been careless as he has filed additional evidence and he has participated in the remand proceedings. Accordingly, opportunity to rebut the remand report is sought. Considering the circumstances it was his prayer that the matter may be remanded back in order to provide the opportunity of being heard.
Considering the record though relying on the order the Ld. Sr. DR agreed that he would have no objection if the remand back is directed.
In the light of the prayer of the parties before the Bench and considering the record wherein admittedly there has been failure in addressing the issues accordingly in order to set right the said short coming the issue is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee shall participate fully and fairly and not abuse the trust reposed.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Said order was pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2022.