M/S RAJ STRUCTURE INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 978/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 September 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative before the CIT(A) but, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for default in attending hearings. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case and requested the matter be remitted back.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for default without providing sufficient opportunity, and whether the additions made under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(iii) were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 09.1.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2012-13 on the following grounds:-

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by merely dismissing the appeal for default in attending the hearings made by the appellant’s representative. Hence, the appellate order is liable to be set aside for fresh consideration.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,45,990/- as made by the AO under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rules on account of investment made.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 27,35,264/- made by the AO under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

3.

During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating the claim to the assessee and passed the exparte order without hearing the assessee. Hence, he requested that the issues in dispute may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

On the contrary, Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records, we find that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A). Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute requires to be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A), afresh. Therefore, we remit back the issues in dispute to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for hearing on 07.10.2019 at 10.00 AM with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that no notice for hearing will be issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee is also directed through his Counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.10.2019 at 10.00 AM for hearing to substantiate his case and did not take any unnecessary adjournment in the case.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17/09/2019.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →