BLACKSTONE INFRACON PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD-5(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2735/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Blackstone Infracon Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was the dismissal of their appeal for want of prosecution, which the assessee argued deprived them of natural justice and an opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits as required by section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a final opportunity to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474945 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. [2012], 18 taxmann.com.166 (Delhi)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 68

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORESH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH, NAVEEN CHANDRA ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA No.2735/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/s Blackstone Infracon Pvt.Ltd.804 West sky Towers, F-5 Opps Fun Cinemas Netaji Subhas Place Pitampura New Delhi -110034 PAN No. AADCB5272D Vs. ITO Ward-5 (1) New Delhi- 110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Amit Srivastava, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Ashish Trpathi Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 03/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 12/02/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 New Delhi[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated23.09.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 pertaining to arises out of the assessment order dated31-03-2013 under section 2 143(3)of the Income Tax Act 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be quashed because: (a) The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the vital fact that the Ld. AO has not considered the notices in which the reply has been received as well as the notices which were delivered at the address but the response was not received as such the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in also ignoring the vital facts of the case. (b) The Ed. CIT(A) has herself noted that \"the assessee company has left without address\" was the noting of the notice received back unserved from the postal authorities and in almost all the cases the notices were received back unserved to the assessee even then she proceeded on passing the ex-parte order which is unlawful, as proper opportunity was never provided to the assessee and the assessee was deprived of presenting its case. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) has denied the natural justice to the assessee. 3 2. That without prejudice to ground no.1 above, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the additions made in assessment order on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the additions confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be deleted because: (a) the assessee is in possession of the identity and confirmations of all the persons who have booked the flats. (b) presently, the project has not only completed, flats have been completed the delivery and handing over of the possession of flats, as such, treating them bogus is unlawful, unjust and uncalled for. 3. The appellant craves leave for addition, modification, alteration amendment, deletion of any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesseeis a Company and filed its return of income on 24-03-2014 declaring loss of Rs 79129/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASSand notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. The A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 31-03-2013 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs 1,03,00,000/-. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despites four opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on 4 the decision of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. [2012],18 taxmann.com.166 (Delhi) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the parties and gone through the material on record. The Ld. AR has stated that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2014-15 has been set aside in the assessee’s own case. It is admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee did not appear before either of the authorities for which ex-parte orders have been passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) in the instant case has not decided the appeal on merit which she was supposed to as per the provision of the section 250(6) of the Act which read under: “The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for decision.” 5 6. Since in the case in hand the Ld. CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and has not decided the appeal on merits, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and fair play we deem fit to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue on merit. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:- 12.02.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "