ANAND BISHT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), FARIDABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) (for Assessment Year : 2014-15) Anand Bisht Vs. ITO H.No.10A, 2nd Floor, Ward – 1(3), Sector-30, 33, Faridabad Indraprastha Colony, Faridabad, Haryana PAN : AIHPB 5249 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None-- Revenue by Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 19.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 19.04.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Faridabad dated 16.03.2018 for Assessment Years 2014-15.

2 3. Assessee is an individual company stated to be engaged in the business of trading of Shares who filed his return of income on 30.11.2014 for A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total loss of Rs.7,19,608/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act was issued on 18.09.2015 fixing the case for hearing on 24.09.2015 and served to the assessee. After that a fresh notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act was issued on 04.11.2016 fixing the case for hearing on 10.11.2016. AO has noted that in response to the notices issued authorized representative of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time. He therefore, passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 determining the assessed income at Rs.1,18,46,150/-.

“The appellant respectfully submits as under: Ground 1 : Treatment of loans received a ‘bogus income’ on account of being held as ‘unexplained income’ falling under scope of Section 68  Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred upholding the decision of the Ld AO in treating loans received by the assessee during the year as ‘bogus and unexplained’ and adding back the same u/s 68 of the Act. Ground No.2: Disallowance of interest paid amounting to INR 2,52,854/

3  Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred upholding the decision of the Ld AO in disallowing interest paid amounting to INR 2,52,854 against unsecured loans by the assessee. Ground No.3 : Disallowance of proportionate interest amounting to INR 4,23,900  Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred upholding the decision of the learned AO to add back interest amounting to INR 4,23,900 on unsecured loans by erroneously applying the judgement of SA Builders Pvt Ltd 288 ITR 1 in view of the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of Act. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of one another. The appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, vary, withdraw or otherwise modify the grounds mentioned herein above at or before the time of hearing. The appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. Case file reveals that there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee and even on the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee though the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after considering the material on record and hearing the DR.

4 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 appeal 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 parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 16.03.2018 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower 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.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8. statistical purposes.