VISHWANATH GUPTA, MANENDRAGARH,MANENDRAGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee: -

The relevant facts required for adjudication of this case are that the assessee, engaged in business of transport lifting supervision, filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) on 30.07.2020 declaring income of Rs.46.09.550/-. The assessee’s business premises were surveyed under section 133A of the Act on 19.02.2019. The case was picked up for scrutiny. During the course of survey proceedings, the assessee had surrendered income of Rs.55,00,000/- as commission from his transport lifting supervision business. The assessee had declared total commission income of Rs.57,33,000/- in his Profit & Loss account of the relevant year and after claiming loss of Rs.11,21,889/- and considering incomes under various heads, the resultant income was declared in ITR. In the assessment, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) made disallowance of discount of Rs.1,49,845/- and addition of Rs.9,38,000/- under the head “commission income”. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. 5. There is no dispute that under section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit. In case of HL Malhotra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-12, New Delhi (ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated 22nd December, 2020), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan 7. Mr. Yash Jain, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal mainly ex-parte due to non-prosecution and the reasoning given by him upholding the additions were not well speaking though the Ld. CIT(A) had to decide the case with speaking order. He therefore, prayed for remanding the case back to the Ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below. However, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance to avoid investigations. Hence, the Authorities below passed well-reasoned orders based on their records. She, therefore prayed for dismissing the appeal and upholding impugned order.

We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We find force in the arguments/contention of the Ld. AR. Further, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal with well-reasoned order. We take note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliance consistently before the Ld. CIT(A). However, considering the facts in entirety and in the interest of justice, we, without offering any comment on merit of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, thus, order accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings.

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

अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.