Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No.7172/DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16
Rajiv Kumar Kataria, v. Deputy Commissioner of 87A, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Income Tax, Circle-12, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AARPK 0106A (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: S/Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv. & Shailendra Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 18 07 2019 Date of pronouncement: 26 07 2019
O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: 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
2 I.T.A. No.7172/DEL/2018
of difference in gross receipt of services as per ITS and as per Profit and Loss account.
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).
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.
3 I.T.A. No.7172/DEL/2018
In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th July, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26th July, 2019 PKK