SHARPLINE NETWORK P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 458/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2019AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must pass a speaking order. The issue was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits after granting the assessee one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a company engaged in setting up TV channels, declared nil income and claimed agricultural income. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim and treated it as income from other sources. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the case on merits. Whether the agricultural income claimed by the assessee is valid.

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(1)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 BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. R. K. PANDA

For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02/07/2019Pronounced: 08/07/2019

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.10.2018 of the CIT(A)-8, New Delhi relating to A. Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee in its various grounds has challenged the exparte order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.52,06,560/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of agricultural income.

3.

After hearing both the sides I find the assessee is a company engaged in the business of setting up of TV channels and network. It filed its return of income on 25.09.2015 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s. 143 (3) rejected the claim of agricultural income shown by the assessee and treated the same as “income from other sources”. Since none appeared before the CIT(A) despite opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to non prosecution.

4.

In my opinion the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for non prosecution and he has to pass a speaking order deciding the issue before him. I, therefore, deem it proper to restore the issue to his file with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to explain his case failing which he is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. However, he has to decide the appeal on merit even if the assessee does not appear. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also undertook to appear before the CIT(A) and explain the case. I, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Page | 2 Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →