Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi dated 13.12.2019.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. “That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Ta (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as “the Act”) dated 13.12.2019 is bad in law and on facts. 1.1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order as an ex-parte order and has dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution of appeal by the appellant without appreciating the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT(Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407(Bombay), whereby it has been held that law does not empower CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution.
That the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act is perverse to the provisions of the law and to the facts of the case, because of not following the provision of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which states that order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.
Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred In confirming the addition of Rs. 30,70,914/- claimed under the head of income from House Property on the account of notional rent. 3.1. That the Ld.AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant was engaged in the business of real estate and it was not in the business of renting out its flats. 3.2. That the Ld.AO has erred in making the addition of notional rent on flats under the head “”Income from House Property” which is held as a stock in trade.
4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no effective representation was made before Ld.CIT(A) and the assessee was not given opportunity to represent its case. Therefore, it was requested that the impugned order may be set aside and the grounds of appeal to be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
3. Ld. DR opposed these submissions and supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).
He submitted that various opportunities were given to the assessee.
I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. It is seen from the order that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity. However, in the interest of principles of natural justice, the last opportunity ought to have been granted to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of principles of natural justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is hereby directed not to seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause of any medical emergency etc. The grounds raised by the assessee are thus allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 30th June, 2021.