NINA LUTHRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 245/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 July 2018AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the IT Act by not mentioning points for determination and reasons for decision. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1 lakh on account of unexplained investment. The CIT(A) initially decided the appeal but later dismissed it after the assessee's counsel left without arguing. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the order was not speaking.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a sufficient opportunity of being heard and passed a speaking order as required by law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 11.07.2018Pronounced: 11.07.2018

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida, Dated 01.12.2017, for the A.Y. 2011-2012.

2.

In this case, the A.O. made addition of Rs.1 lakh on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.

2 ITA.No.245/Del./2018 Smt. Nina Luthra, Noida. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that originally the appeal was decided vide order dated 27.01.2016. However, assessee moved an application for recalling of the said order stating that grievance of the assessee were not completely adjudicated and the grounds raised by the assessee remain unadjudicated. The Ld. CIT(A) fixed the matter for hearing again and on the request of the assessee, it was adjourned to 27.11.2017, but, on that date, there were no response from the side of the assessee. The matter was again listed for 01.12.2017 but the Counsel for the assessee though appeared before him but choose to leave his Office without arguing the case and without seeking any adjournment. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed the appeal of assessee.

4. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee in the grounds of appeal submitted that no sufficient opportunity of being heard have been given by the Ld. CIT(A) and that no speaking order have been passed.

3 ITA.No.245/Del./2018 Smt. Nina Luthra, Noida. According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. However, such provision have not been complied with in this case. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with a direction to re-decide the matter/case of the assessee in accordance with law, by mentioning point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. The Ld. CIT(A) shall give reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →