Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 19.09.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2016-17.
Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that the Assesseeby filing its return of income electronically on dated 17.10.2016 declared an income at Rs. NIL after setting off brought forward business losses of Rs.48,35,906/-. The assessee also declared an income of Rs.62,92,609/- u/s. 115JB of the Act under the MAT provisions. The Assessing Officer ultimately made the addition of Rs.83,87,639/- on account of agricultural income by passing Assessment order 24.12.2018u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner. In the appeal proceedings, theAssessee was given various opportunities of hearing on dated 07.08.2019, 28.08.2019 and 17.09.2019, but the assessee neither attended the appellate proceedings nor submitted any written statement/paper book. Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limineby relying on the decision of Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late TukajiraoHolkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(MP). Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
Though the notice for hearing to the Assessee was sent through Speed Post at the address given in Form No. 36, but theAssessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, we are deciding this appeal as ex-parte.
Heard the Ld. DR who supported the impugned order and perused the orders passed by the authorities below. We observe thatin the appellate proceedings, the assessee was afforded various opportunities of hearing by the Ld. Commissioner, but the assessee failed to avail the same and has not taken the notices issued to it with seriousness and sincerity such notices deserve. The proceedings under the Act cannot be left to the unilateral and unjustified decision of the Assessee to attend or not to attend the hearing at its whims and fancies. Before us also, the Assessee’s lackadaisical attitude in responding the notices for hearing is discernible from the record. Prima facie conduct of the Assessee, seems to be un-responsive and irresponsible and therefore do not deserve any leniency.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, since the ld. Commissioner has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine without going into the merits, therefore, in the interest justice and for just decision of the case, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by giving proper opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to appear as and when would be required and to file the relevant documents as would be needed for the proper adjudication of the appeal and in case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any kind of leniency. Order accordingly.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18/10/2022.