SUDHIR CHAUHAN,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 4(3), GURGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have provided a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee raised several grounds, including additions made under Section 68, disallowance of interest, and disallowance under Section 14A.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 03.01.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2015-16.
The grievance of the assessee read as under :- That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 1.
law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and thus confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO.
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)has erred 2. in lawand on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex parte and thus confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO without providing proper opportunity^ the appellant of being heard in the matter.
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)has erred 3. in lawand on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and thus confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO without appreciating the grounds 1 to 7 taken by the appellant in the appeal.
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has 4. also erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 40,37,500/- u/s 68 of the Act, relating to expenditure on lease of horses relating to earlier/current year treated as capital expenditure in place of treating as a revenue expense by the appellant without appreciation of that section 68 was not applicable in the case and no addition could be made or upheld. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has 5. erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 17,61,842/- disallowing proportionate interest amount paid on loans, not utilized for the purpose of business, whereas all interest free loans out of total loans were given for the purpose of business expediency.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also 6. erred by confirming addition of Rs. 2,80,943/-u/s 14A of the Act ignoring the submission of appellant that investment have been made out of own fund and no income was received during the year.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also 7. erred by confirming, addition of Rs. 3,30,798/- on ad hoc basis assuming personal use of car & Telephone expenses made by A.O on the basis of presumption or surmises. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and 8. delete any grounds of appeal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of several notices since 09.05.2022, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte.
The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we find that when the appeal was listed for hearing the assessee sought adjournment but the same was denied by the CIT(A) who proceeded by deciding the appeal exparte.
In our considered opinion the CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard , therefore, in the interest of justice we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(A) with a direction to afford a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh.
4 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Decision announced in the open court on 12.09.2023.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
