AASL INDIA FINVEST PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4418/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 November 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit instead of dismissing it for want of prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in share trading, filed its return of income. The AO made additions for disallowed business loss on penny stocks and wrong claim on long-term capital gain. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. The need for the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Nipun Mittal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.DR
Hearing: 18.11.2020Pronounced: 18.11.2020

ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19th March, 2019 of the CIT(A)-32, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The assessee in its various grounds of appeal has challenged the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance/addition made by the AO.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares on delivery basis. It filed its return of income on 30th September, 2014 declaring total income at Rs.19,06,480/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) the Act on 26th December, 2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.68,60,370/- wherein he disallowed business loss claimed in penny stock at Rs.44,44,441/- and added wrong claim on long-term capital gain of Rs.5,09,445/-. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite service of notice, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) and various other decisions, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution.

4.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the materials available on record. We find, despite number of opportunities granted by the ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate its case for which the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do instead of dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The 2 assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) and substantiate its case, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 17th November, 2020 itself.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →