RAJIV KUMAR KATARIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7172/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 July 2019AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order without deciding the issues on merits due to the assessee's non-response. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing. The CIT(A) had confirmed additions on account of deemed rental, disallowed interest expenses, added income under Section 68, disallowed expenses, and made additions for differences in gross receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the additions made by the AO should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. &
For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. In various grounds of appeal, the assesse has challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and also confirming the additions on account of:- (i) deemed rental of commercial shop of Rs.6 lacs; (ii) disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.18,42,000/-; (iii) addition of Rs.38,09,500/- u/s.68; (iv) disallowance of expenses at Rs.1,70,447/-; and (v) addition of Rs.14,63,158/- on account of difference in gross receipt of services as per ITS and as per Profit and Loss account.

2.

Before us, learned counsel submitted that though there was non-compliance on two occasions for the reason that no proper communication could be received to the assesse and even otherwise also, ld. CIT (A) was required to dispose of the appeal on merits in terms of Section 250(6). Thus, in the interest of justice, he submitted that matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to be decided afresh and on merits after giving due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assesse. Ld. CIT-DR also did not object for restoring the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A).

3.

After considering the impugned order, we find that ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the assessment order without deciding it on merits as the assesse could not respond to communication sent through mail to the assesse. Since issues has not been dealt on merit, therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to decide all the issues raised before us on merits and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assesse. The assesse shall also ensure due compliance on the dates given from the office of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th July, 2019.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →