Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. BHAVNESH SAINI & SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI
ORDER
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-I, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2016-17.
Assessee is a company who filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 14.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.1,85,796/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and therefore assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 26.11.2018 and the total income was determined at Rs.12,32,978/-.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide ex parte order passed by CIT(A) in Appeal No.174/18-19 dated 12.06.2019 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT, assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Authority has grossly erred in making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income tax act, 1961 as the assessee company did not have any income which does not form part of total income in that relevant year, which is highly injudicious, unwarranted and bad at law.
2. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the disallowance of a sum of Rs 14,18,774/- by the Id. Assessing officer u/s 14A is unwarranted, injudicious & bad at law.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dt. 11.06.2019 passed by the Id. first appellate authority u/s 250 of the Act for the AY 2016-17 is injudicious, unwarranted and against the principle of natural justice as the notices has been sent on the wrong address.
4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Assessing Authority has grossly erred in alleging that the assessee company has not applied the borrowed funds for the purpose of its business which is unwarranted & against the facts.
5. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal.”
4. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed though Page | 2 the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. We therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after considering the material on record and hearing the DR.
Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO.
We have heard Learned DR and perused the material on record. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 12.06.2019 and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2020