DLA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in real estate, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 6,77,083/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte dismissal.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and if the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA, HON’BLE & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, HON’BLE
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 03.04.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, New Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15. All the grounds raised in the appeal relate to the exparte order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,77,083/-, made by the Assessing Officer in his Order dated 29.7.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The facts of the case, in brief , are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of real estate and property development. It filed its return of income on 20.9.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 8,99,45,690/- . The AO by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules made the disallowance of Rs. 6,77,083/- to the income of the assessee. Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya and other, 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non prosecution.
Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, dismissed the appeal due to non prosecution. Further, she has not decided the appeal on merits. He submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate its case.
Ld. DR on the other hand, opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both sides and perused the records. It is an admitted fact that due to non prosecution of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass the exparte order. However, she has not decided the appeal on merits, as per the provisions of law under section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issues as per facts and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment, under any pretext, failing which, the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass an appropriate order, as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the Assessee’s Appeals is allowed for statistical purposes.
The above decision is announced in the presence of both the parties on conclusion of virtual hearing on 10.02.2021.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026