Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals (ITA No.821/DEL/2024 and ITA No.892/DEL/2024) against a CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18, which had sustained an addition under Section 69. The CIT(A) dismissed ITA No.821/DEL/2024 in limine without merits due to the assessee's non-pursuit, while the assessee sought to withdraw ITA No.892/DEL/2024 as it was inadvertently filed manually.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed ITA No.892/DEL/2024 as withdrawn. For ITA No.821/DEL/2024, finding that the CIT(A) had not decided the Section 69 addition on merits, the Tribunal directed a remand to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing and decide the matter according to law.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without a decision on merits, and if so, whether the matter should be remitted back for a de novo hearing. Also, whether the inadvertently filed second appeal should be allowed to be withdrawn.
Sections Cited
Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) A.N. Frozen Foods (P) Ltd., vs. ITO, Ward 1 (1), C/o CA Vaibhav Goel, Delhi. 75, Navyug Market, 1st Floor, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AADCA5298G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Vaibhav Goel, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.07.2024 Date of Order : 23.08.2024 ORDER
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:
The assessee has filed appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 22.12.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
On verification of the record, it is found that assessee has filed two appeals against the impugned order of ld. CIT (A) dated 22.12.2023. In this regard, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal being ITA was filed manually inadvertently. Therefore, he requested that the appeal being may be allowed to withdraw and in this regard, a request letter dated 31.07.2024 was filed. In this view of the matter, the appeal being is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. With regard to at the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that the ld. CIT (A) decided the issue against the assessee by observing that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities and the details are given in the first appellate order by relying on several decisions and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) has not decided the issue on merit and prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that there are reasons for assessee for not appearing before the first appellate authority.
On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and submitted that assessee has not utilised several opportunities granted by ld. CIT (A).
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that the addition under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was sustained by the ld. CIT (A) and considering the addition sustained by the ld. CIT (A), in our considered view, assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, we direct ld. CIT (A) to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. We also direct assessee to & 892/DEL/2024 make proper submissions and appear before the ld.CIT (A) on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, is allowed for statistical purposes and is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of August, 2024.