TAKSHILA RETAIL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 887/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the merits, violating principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in trading readymade garments and fabrics, filed a return declaring a loss. The assessment order determined a significantly higher total income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without deciding on merits, citing non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessment order itself violated principles of natural justice.

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 ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Manjeet Singh Rathore, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 25.04.2022Pronounced: 28.04.2022

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.11.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:-

3.

Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of Trading of readymade garments and fabrics. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 declaring loss of Rs.53,55,116/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.26,57,45,915/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 23.11.2016 in Appeal No.TR 73/16-17 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the order passed by the Ld CIT (A) summarily dismissing the appeal mainly on the ground of non prosecution is illegal, bad in law and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal even without considering that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO was also in violation of principle of natural justice.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the below mentioned additions: Amount Details S.No 1. Rs. 10,16,00,000/- u/s 68 being unsecured loans received 2. Rs. 15,61,76,820/- u/s 68 being receipt of share capital 3. Rs. 65,29,721/- Being advance written off by appellant company 4. Rs. 2,80,925/- Being security deposits written off 5. Rs. 65,13,564/- Being Bad debts written off by the appellant company

4.

That the Appellant Company craves the right to amend, append, delete any or all grounds of appeal

.”

4. On the date of hearing a request for adjournment was made by AR vide letter dated 25.04.2022. The request for adjournment is rejected. We thus proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

5. Before us, Learned DR fairly submitted that CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeals of the assessee on merits but however submitted that since there was no appearance by assessee before CIT(A), CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeals without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no party should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 06.06.2019 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issue after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Assessee is also directed to promptly furnish the details called for by the authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2022

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →