Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2013-14] The A.C.I.T Vs. Shalini Reality Pvt. Ltd Central Circle – 20 [Formerly known as Mithillanchal New Delhi Investment & Finance Pvt Ltd. 7, Narinder Bhawan, 488, Ring Road, Azadpur, New Delhi PAN : AACCM 5873 C [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 10.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2017 Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 27, New Delhi vide order dated 06.01.2017 for A.Y. 2013-14.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 49, 67,380/- ignoring the facts on record”
2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences without allowing any opportunity to the Assessing Officer.
3. Thus the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.’’
None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, I heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record.
The facts of the case are that assessment in the present case was made u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]. The notices sent to the assessee were received back undelivered, therefore, the Assessing Officer made the additions. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted additional evidences but had not given opportunity to the Assessing Officer and therefore, he is not justified in taking decision without following the principles of natural justice. In all fairness, under the present facts and circumstances of the case, the mater is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer who will decide the issue denovo, of course, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in A.Y. 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 16.10.2017.