Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
Assessee by: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CA Department by: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 05.06.2025 O R D E R
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal of assessee is against order dated 20.11.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Ld. CIT(A)” under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of order dated 27.12.2017 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2015-16.
Brief facts of case are that assessee company e-filed its return of income on 13.10.2015 declaring income of Rs.6,85.120/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 12.11.2015. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act under following parameters:
“1. Large share premium received during the year [verify applicability of Sec.56(2)(viib)].
2. Real estate business with high closing stock (verify whether assessee has adopted percentage completion method).
3. Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR.”
Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.04.2016 which was received back with remarks “left”. Again notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued for 12.07.2016 which was not received back. None appeared on 12.07.2016. Fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 12.09.2016 but nobody appeared. On 30.09.2016, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was e-mailed which was also uncomplied with. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was served upon the assessee on 21.02.2017. On 28.02.2017 Shri Ajay Pandey, staff member of assessee company appeared. On request, proceedings were adjourned to 03.03.2017. Notice under Section 142(1) dated 21.02.2017 was placed on record. Shri Himanshu Gupta, CA appeared with PAO on 17.03.2017 and filed part details. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.01.2017 was issued to assessee to furnish certain information including details of build up area of project, saleable area of the project and saleable area sold by the company till 31.03.2015. No reply was filed by assessee and assessment proceedings were not attended. Show cause notice dated 23.10.2017 was issued for initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act but none attended. Penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was passed on 02.11.2017. On 01.12.2017, notices under Section 131 were issued to Shri Arvind Aggarwal, director of the assessee company requesting his to furnish details of documents as required by notice issued under Section 142(1) dated 28.08.2017 for 07.12.2017. On 08.12.2019, Shri Himanshu Gupta, CA attended and requested for adjournment. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO passed order dated 27.12.2017.
Against order dated 27.12.2017, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2023.
Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal.
Learned Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) erred in affirming the order of Ld. AO by wrongly mentioning that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal ex parte. The matter may be sent back to Ld.CIT(A).
Learned Authorized Representative for Revenue submitted that despite notices, appellant failed to appear in appellate proceedings.
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that appellant/assessee despite repeated notices of hearing failed to appear before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by mentioning that the appellant has not pursued the appeal. Appellant/assessee has submitted that the matter may be sent back to Ld.CIT(A). In view of above material facts in the interest of justice, it is expedient to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair and adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee .