HBP ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard and without stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons, violated statutory requirements. The order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in property development, declared a loss. The Assessing Officer disallowed business expenses, treating the income as 'income from other sources'. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-representation.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly followed the statutory procedure for disposing of an appeal, including providing an opportunity of hearing and stating reasons for the decision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SHRI L. P. SAHU
Date of Hearing 04.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 31/12/2015 passed by CIT(A)-4, New Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07, on various grounds including the grounds that the appeal was dismissed without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee .
Both the parties have been heard. 2.1. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee who is engaged in the business of Builders/Property Developers declared a loss of Rs.6,79,435/-. In view of the fact that the assessee had earned income of Rs.1,68,961/- from bank interest and interest from others and had claimed business expenses to the tune of Rs. 8,48,396/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the business expenses and assessed the total income at 1,68,961/- holding as under:- “ Since income earned is income from other sources, only expenses incidental to earning income from other sources is allowed to set off against income from other sources in accordance with Section 57. In view of the provisions of Section 56 & 57 business expenses are disallowed.”
The said finding led to the passing of the penalty order u/s 271(1) (c). Aggrieved by which the assessee came in appeal before the First Appellate Authority. In view of non representation the appeal was dismissed holding as under:- “2. In response to the notices, the last time appellant had appeared was on 9/1/2014, when they made the submissions. On that date my predecessor had asked to furnish the details of travelling expenses and other expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer. After that the details were never filed and the appellant went on to seek many adjournments as visible from the order sheet. Finally after I joined in this charge, again a notice was issued and the case was fixed on 16/7/2015. The appellant was given further adjournments to 4/8/2015 and 31/8/2015 but after that nobody appeared on 31/8/2015 even. In view of non- compliance, I hereby dismiss the appeal”. (emphasis provided)
Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal. On consideration of the above we are of the view that the aforesaid decision of the learned First Appellate Authority does not meet the statutory requirements as set out sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961. The same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 250. “(1) …………………………………………. (2) ………………………………………………… (3) ………………………………………………… (4) …………………………………………………. (5) …………………………………………………. (6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. (6A)...................................................................”
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026