Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed to the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed their appeal for AY 2013-14 due to non-prosecution. The assessee argued they were not given adequate opportunity to be heard and challenged various additions/disallowances made by the AO, including those related to interest, business expenses, and LTCG under Section 50C. A 44-day delay in filing the ITAT appeal was also sought to be condoned due to non-receipt of notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 44-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee claimed they could not properly present their case before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remitted all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and not considering various additions/disallowances, including under Sections 14A and 50C, without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, and if the delay in filing the ITAT appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
Section 14A, Section 50C, Section 45, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 234D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
Date of hearing : 13.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 18.11.2024 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 24.4.2024, relating to assessment year 2013- 14 on the following grounds:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the appeal filed by the assessee as non-maintainable and further erred in dismissing the appeal and that too without providing the adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice.
2: That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of assessee which is in violation of principles of natural justice and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the following addition/disallowances made by Ld. AO which are not tenable even on facts and in law also and the same were based on incorrect facts and findings and in violation of principles of natural justice. (a) Rs.6,84,207/- disallowance of interest expenditure. (b) Rs.2,919/- disallowance u/s 14A. (c) Rs. 19,358/- adhoc disallowance under the head Telephone Expenses, Diesel & Petrol Expenses and depreciation on car. (d) Rs. 1,02,760/- disallowance of business promotion expenses. (e) Rs. 1,00,31,250/- addition on account of alleged LTCG by invoking section 50C.
That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not deleting the various addition/disallowances as stated above, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons for delay has been pointed out that notices were not received by the assessee, hence, it is prayed that delay in 2 | P a g e dispute may kindly be condoned. Upon hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the records, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute is condoned.
In this case, in the assessment order, the AO made the assessment as under:- Income from business & Rs. 65,08,906/- profession (As declared in ITR) Addition on interest Rs. 6,84,207/- expenditure Addition u/s. 14A Rs. 2,919/- Addition on personal Rs. 19,358/- expenditure Addition on business Rs. 1,02,760/- Rs. 56,99,662/- promotion Income from capital gain Rs. 1,14,31,992/- (as declared in ITR): Addition u/s. 45 r.w. 50C Rs. 1,00,31,250/- Rs. 2,14,63,242/- Gross total income Rs. 1,57,63,580/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,57,63,580/- 3.1 Against the above order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 3.2 Against the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that assesssee has not been able to canvass the case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, he pleaded that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to properly canvass his case before the Ld. CIT(A). 4.1 After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly.
3 | P a g e
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18/11/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRB Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar
4 | P a g e