Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, & SHRI L.P. SAHU,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Vs. The A.C.I.T C – 107, Gali No. 7 Circle – 19(1) Majlis park, Azadpur New Delhi Delhi PAN : AAACM 1761 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 15.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 18.03.2016 Appellant by : Shri Devender Jindal, Adv Respondent by : Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi, dated 23/10/2013 passed in first appeal No. 10/12-13 for A.Y 2011-12.
The grounds raised by the revenue read as under:
The orders dated 16th February 2012 passed by learned ACIT u/s “1. 154 read with 143(1) of the income tax act, 1961 rejecting rectification application dated 18.1.2012 u/s 154 of the Act filled by the appellant is bad in law and on facts. 2. The learned ACIT added back provision of income tax of current year of Rs.456066 and also tax of earlier year of Rs.25028 to the profit before tax disclosed by the appellant in the return which has led to the wrong addition of the taxes to the profit before taxes and hence the impugned demand which is bad in laws and liable to be deleted.
That appellant order dated 23.10.2013 passed by ld.CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi is bad as per the law and fact as principle of natural justice has not been complied with while passing the impugned appellate order ex-parte by Ld CIT(Appeals)-XXII, New Delhi.
That ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-parte appellate order without considering and discussing the facts on merits and without disposing grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before ld CIT(Appeals)-XXII, New Delhi.”
3. At the very outset of the opening of the hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the issues under consideration have not been decided by the ld. CIT(A) in a proper manner and the submissions of the assessee have not been considered and appreciated in a judicious manner. He submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order without providing the assessee due opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that the issues may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.
4. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). However, he raised no serious objection if the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before us. On the basis of foregoing discussion and careful perusal of the operative part of the ld. CIT(A)’s conclusion, it is amply clear that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in haste by passing a cryptic order which is not sustainable. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has not properly considered the submissions and facts of the case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the issues require to be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore all the grounds of appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide due and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without being prejudiced with the earlier impugned order. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2016.