Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-1”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2019 in Appeal No. 372/2018- 19 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) in the case of M/s. Aggarwal Multy Speciality Hospital Ltd. (the assessee) for the assessment year 2016-17, assessee preferred this appeal.
It could be seen from the records that assessee has filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. (-) 63,244/- and revised return on 11.5.2017 at loss of Rs. (-) 5,99,549/-. It is seen from revised return and also from the CASS reason that assesee has revised the return of after demonetization and cash in hand has been increased from Rs. 6,15,445/- to Rs. 25,00,813/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was completed by the learned Assessing Officer on 28.12.2018 determining assessed income of Rs. 12,85,720/- by making addition of Rs. 18,85,268/- on account of undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.
During the assessment proceedings, various notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued. Despite issuance of various fixation notices the assessee neither attended the appellate proceedings nor submitted any written statement/paper book in support of the grounds of appeal
. Ld. CIT(A) therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of a state of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 which says that if the party at whose instance the proceedings are initiated fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paperbook so as to enable hearing of the case, the court is not bound to decide the case.
4. It appears to us that in the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao (supra) is a misplaced one. Impugned order is not in compliance with the requirement of section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) which obliges the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing, after stating the points for a determination and then rendered a decision on each of the points which arises for consideration with the reasons in support. Further under section 251 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul and assessment and/or penalty. It is, therefore, clear that once the assessee filed an appeal under section 246A of the Act, it is not open for the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal in limine without any reasons being assigned on the points from for a determination. According to us, therefore, the dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) in limine is incorrect because the impugned order does not render any assistance to us to appreciate the contentions of the assessee on merits. Further such an order does not render any assistance to us to appreciate the contentions of the assessee on merits.
5. With this view of this matter we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal afresh by giving reasons after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. We make it clear to the assessee that it is a final chance to put forth his case on merits.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced after conclusion of the hearing in virtual mode on this the 22nd March, 2021. sd/- sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22 March, 2021 Veena