SUNEEL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, MUMABI

The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as it is passed keeping in abeyance the principal of natural justice, without providing an opportunity to be heard to the assessee. 3(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in conforming the order of the AO for making an assessment at an income of Rs 1,77,33,410/- as against returned income of Rs. 70,32,528/- 3(ii) That the AO has erred in law and on facts in making addition by considering the impugned amount as short term capital gain instead of long term capital gain on account of sale of shares & that shares were acquired by the assessee under ESOP Scheme and in disallowing deduction u/s 54F of Income Tax Act." 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. In spite of issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought.

In Ground No. 2 of the grounds of appeal, the assessee specifically challenged the order of the learned CIT(A), stating that the learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

We have perused the order of the learned CIT(A) and observed that there is no finding as to any issue of notice by the learned CIT(A) requiring the assessee to make the submissions or providing an opportunity to the assessee before disposing of the appeal. Thus, in the interest of justice, we restore this appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A), who shall decide the issues on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

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