Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 30.01.2020 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17.
The grievance of the assessee read as under :-
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the leamed CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the order ex-parte without giving the assessee an appropriate and adequate opportunity of being heard and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the leamed CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order ignoring the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by AO is barred by limitation as the same has been passed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act. 4. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 92.68,125/- made by the AO on account of investment in unlisted equity shares of ACCIL Auto Steel Pvt Ltd treating the same as unexplained investment invoking the provision of section 69 of the Act. (II) That the above addition has been confirmed at an arbitrary rate of 30% of the total investment made without there being any basis for the same. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.10,70,035/- made by the AO invoking the provision of section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. (ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. (iii) That the disallowance has been confirmed ignoring the judicial pronouncements in this regard.
On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.601,00,733/- made by AO on account of increase in long term borrowing treating the same as unexplained cash credits invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 7.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Lenard CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO without there any direct evidences merely by indulging in gross conjecture and surmises solely on the basis of presumption and assumption.”
At the very outset the Counsel for the assessee made an oral request for raising an additional ground which goes to the root of the matter.
It is the say of the Counsel that the order of the CIT(A) is devoid of DIN, therefore, is invalid and deem to have never been issued in the light of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. The additional ground is admitted and as it goes to the root of the matter the same is adjudicated first.
The CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 is 5. binding on the revenue and is as under :-
Clause-4 of the aforementioned circular when read with clause-2 makes the appellate order not in conformity with the mandate of the circular and, therefore, it shall be treated as invalid and deem to have never been issued.
In the light of the circular the order of the first appellate authority is treated as invalid and has never been issued. 9. However, the CIT(A) is at liberty to reframe the appellate order in line with the mandate of CBDT circular (supra) after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Decision announced in the open court on 19.12.2023.