Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.06.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:-
Assessee is a company which stated to be having income from business of trading and investment in securities. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.09.2014 declaring loss of Rs.2,00,16,521/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.12.2016 and the total loss was determined at Rs.1,76,70,048/-.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 05.06.2018 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds :
1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law by merely dismissing the appeal only on the basis of non- appearance without deciding the matter on merits of the case. Hence, the appellate order is liable to be set aside for fresh consideration.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.23,00,000/- by treating the said loan amount as bogus and established as unexplained and added back to total income of the appellant under section 68 of the Act.”
Before us, at the outset, Learned AR with respect to Ground 5. No.1 submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without deciding the matter on merits. He further submitted that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to plead its case and he further gave an undertaking that assessee would appear before the authorities and file the required details.
Learned DR on the other hand strongly objected to seeking of second innings by the assessee and he pointed to the findings of CIT(A) that despite various opportunities there was no appearance from the side of assessee. He therefore submitted that the assessee does not deserve second innings.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before us, it is the contention of the Learned AR that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the assessee and therefore assessee could not comply with the directions. 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 without considering the issue on merits, 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 05.06.2018 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 assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.05.2023