EASTERN RESORTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2495/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 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 merits and could not dismiss it solely on account of non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, deriving income from commission, filed a return declaring Rs. 2,500/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- for unexplained cash deposits, increasing the total income to Rs. 1,90,02,500/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-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 Respondent: Shri Umesh Lakyash, Sr.DR
Hearing: 17.11.2020Pronounced: 17.11.2020

ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 14th January, 2019 of the CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2014- 15.

2.

The assessee in its various grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) sustaining various additions made by the AO.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and derives income from commission. It filed its return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.2,500/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,90,02,500/- wherein he made addition of Rs.1,90,00,000/- being unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. Since none appeared before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

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

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. However, after hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the record, we find, the ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee has basically relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITR 320 and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar reported in 223 ITR 480 and various other decisions. He has not decided the appeal on merit which he was supposed to. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the ld.CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-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 2 assessee to substantiate its case, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →