Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, appealed against the CIT(A)'s orders for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2012-13, which had dismissed their appeals regarding adjustments made to their income under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee cited financial difficulties and lack of proper hearing as grounds, but did not appear before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal, noting that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits, agreed with the Senior DR's suggestion to remand the matter. It held that it was in the interest of justice and fair play to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals dismissed by the CIT(A) should be remanded for a fresh decision on merits, considering the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on merits and the assessee's claims of lack of proper hearing.
Sections Cited
143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM
These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against three separate orders dated 28.02.2023 of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13.
The assessee has taken the following common grounds in all the three appeals:-
Sir due to financial crises and badly disturb of normal life, no hearing given properly. Please give one more opportunity for hearing. Sir assessment order is not traceable so few figures data on estimate basis.
Rajdhani Flora & Infrastructure Developers P Ltd. vs ITO 2
It is revealed from the record that the assessee e-filed its return for AY 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 49,96,720/-, Rs. 38,58,550/- and Rs.12,55,852/- on 30.09.2008, 30.09.2009 and 26.02.2013 respectively. The returns were processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 29.12.2009, 23.03.2011 and 28.06.2013 respectively. Against certain adjustments made in the intimation, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) for all the three AY(s).
The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the three appeals vide his separate order(s) dated 28.02.2023 against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal taking common ground stated earlier.
None attended the hearing fixed before the Tribunal on 05.12.2023 for and/or on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR was, however, present. So we decided to proceed to adjudicate the appeals after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR.
The Ld. Sr. DR suggested that since appeal(s) have not been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits, it would be expedient if the matter is sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeals on merits. We agree. It would be, in the interest of justice and fair play if the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide them denovo on merits after allowing opportunity to the assessee to present his case. We order accordingly.
For statistical purposes, these three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed.