Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “”A”: DELHI
Before: SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, HON’BLE & SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
Stay Application Nos.324, 325 & 326/Del/2017 Arising out of ITA.No.3145, 3146 & 3147/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Shri Gaurav Aggarwal D-31, Pushpanjali Enclave, vs. DCIT, Central Circle-9, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. PAN AGLPA2867N (Appellant) (Respondent) Stay Application Nos.318, 319, 320 & 321/Del/2017 Arising out of ITA.No.3148, 3149, 3150 & 3151/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Shri Saurav Aggarwal D-31, Pushpanjali Enclave, vs. DCIT, Central Circle-9, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. PAN AHLPA7628J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessees : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2017 ORDER PER BENCH : This order shall dispose of stay applications and appeals filed by different assessees.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue in all the stay applications and appeals.
Briefly the facts of the case are that all the appeals by different assessees are filed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A)-27, 4 ITA.Nos. 3139 to 3151/Del/2016 & SAs.318-326, 328, 332 & 334 /Del/2017 M/s. Divine Infracon P. Ltd., New Delhi and others New Delhi dated 31st March, 2016 for the above assessment years. Similarly, the assessees have filed stay applications in all the above appeals.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in all the appeals though the assessees did not appear before the CIT(A) however their submissions were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on which remand reports have been called for but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee without passing a reasoned order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that due to the above reasons, huge demands have been raised against the assessees in all the appeals on which stay applications are filed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that no notices are received by the assessees for appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeals.
With the consent of both the parties, we proceed to decide the appeals of various assessees along with the stay applications.
After hearing the learned Representative of both the parties and perusal of the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A), we find that Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeals of assessees for default. As per section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order by giving reasons for decision in the appellate order, even if assessee appeared before him or not. The orders of the Ld. CIT(A) therefore can only be sustained in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that no notices have been served upon the assessee for hearing of the appeals. Therefore, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are also passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter, we set aside all the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) and restore all the appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi with a direction to re-decide the appeals of the assessees