Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 09.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2013-14. It is noted that there is delay in filing the appeal and in this regard, assessee’s counsel has filed an application dated 05.02.2018 for condonation of delay alongwith the affidavit of Mrs. Sonali Kumar, Secretary of the Assessee-Society, mentioning therein the reasons for non-filing of appeal in time and requested to condone the delay in dispute. Ld. DR did not controvert the contention of the ld. counsel of the assessee in this regard. After perusing the application for condonation of delay and affidavit of the assessee, I am of the considered view that there are plausible reasons for condoning the delay in dispute, hence, I condone the delay in dispute.
The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the lower authorities have not properly considered the documents / evidences filed by the assessee and decided the issues against the assessee and did not provide an adequate opportunity to substantiate its case before them. He further submitted that the documents which were filed before the lower authorities were very essential in considering the issues in dispute. He further submitted that assessee may be provided an opportunity to substantiate its case before the AO by setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard and after considering the evidences / documents to be filed by the assessee. It was further requested that assessee may also be allowed to file any evidence/documents before the AO to substantiate its case.
On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below, but could not controvert the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the orders of the revenue authorities. I find considerable cogency in the submissions of the assessee’s counsel that AO has not properly considered the documents / evidences filed by the assessee and decided the issues against the assessee and did not provide an adequate opportunity to substantiate its case before him. However, the documents / evidences filed by the assessee before the AO are very essential in considering the issues in dispute. Hence, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same, afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order, after considering all the documents / evidences to be filed by the assessee before the AO. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take nay unnecessary adjournment and file all the necessary documents / evidences to substantiate its case.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.