Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal *in limine* without deciding the issue on merit, on the grounds that the assessee failed to pursue the appeal despite being granted several opportunities. The core dispute revolved around an addition sustained by the CIT(A) related to ocean freight charges.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the addition relating to ocean freight charges was sustained by the CIT(A) and, in fairness, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and decide the issue on merit according to law, with the assessee also directed to make proper submissions and cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal *in limine* for non-prosecution without adjudicating the merits of the addition concerning ocean freight charges.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
(Assessment Year: 2016-17) Apollo Supply Chain Private Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 73 (1), Plot No.20, Sector 44, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN : AALCA0748D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.07.2024 Date of Order : 21.08.2024 ORDER
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 06.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
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 appeal 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 was sustained by the ld. CIT (A) relating to ocean freight charges and considering the additions 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 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.