PHOOL SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 23.08.2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A) - XVIII, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on the following grounds of appeal: “1) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXVIII, New Delhi has erred in deciding the appellate proceedings by confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to submit and substantiate his claim on the additions made by the Learned Assessing.

) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming an arbitrary addition of Rs.10,000.00 out of Business Promotion Telephone expenses claimed by the appellant without appreciating the fact that the entire expenses has 3 I.T.A.No.5556/Del/2012 been incurred for in the nature of and for the purpose of the appellants business ..

Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee is in the business of civil foundation for installation of telecommunication towers. During the year under consideration, the assessee had derived income from contractual activities and sales/purchase of shares and mutual funds apart from income from other sources and house property. The assessee filed its return on 30.09.2009 declaring income at Rs.1,50,03,792/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, Ld. A.O. observed that the assessee had claimed loss on sale of shares and mutual funds, amounting to Rs.71,92,177/-, the break of which is as under: Loss on sale of mutual funds Rs.54,58,406/- Loss on account of normal share trading Rs.15,00,911/- Loss claimed on account of trading in derivatives Rs.2,32,860/- 2.2 Ld. A.O. held that the loss claimed by the assesse on sale of mutual funds amounting to Rs.54,58,406/- has to 4 I.T.A.No.5556/Del/2012 be treated as capital gain loss. Ld. A.O. further made disallowances which are as under: Site expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Vehicle & Conveyance Expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Telephone expenses Rs.50,000/- Business Promotion expenses Rs.10,000/- 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of Ld. A.O., assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 2.4 Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order as under: “During the appeal proceedings the appellant sought adjournment against notice dated 24.04.2012, case was adjourned several times on 07.05.2012, 10.05.2012. However none appeared. Another notice was issued on 17.07.2012, appellant sought adjournment on 25.07.2012. Case was adjourned for haring on 03.08.2012. None appeared nor filed any written submission. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer. The order of the Assessing Officer is therefore sustained. Appeal on this ground is dismissed.”

We have perused the records placed before us and the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A). From the conclusion drawn by Ld. CIT(A) reproduced hereinabove, we find that he has just confirmed the action of Ld. A.O. without properly discussing the case on merits. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order to Ld. CIT(A)with the directions to dispose of the appeal of the assessee afresh after allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that while redeciding the appeal. Ld. CIT(A) should pass speaking order keeping in mind the mandate of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Sep., 2016.