Ram Bajaj Foundation, RNB House 1, Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, West Delhi V. Income Tax Officer(Exemption) 2(4), New Delhi

ITA 1809/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1875 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH KUMAR JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; AMAN GARG
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1809/DEL/2023 [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Ram Bajaj Foundation, RNB House 1, Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden West Delhi, Delhi-110027 Vs ITO, Ward Exemption-2(4), Delhi PAN: AAGCR5068N Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, CA Revenue by Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM, The aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 15.05.2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi, for the quantum of assessment passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that here in this case, the appeal has been decided ex-parte by the learned CIT(A), because the assessee had raised preliminary issue of ITA No.1809/Del/2023 2 jurisdiction and requested for the copy of order u/s 124(4) of the Act passed by CIT(Exemption) for determining the jurisdiction in this case, which was made available. Further, the assessee had been seeking adjournment, which has been rejected n by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order confirming the order of the Assessing Officer which again was passed under section 144 of the Act. 3. Before us, 1d. DR submitted that even before the Assessing Officer, proper compliance has not been made, therefore, the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass order under section 144 of the Act. Therefore, if at all the matter is restored or set-aside then the same should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 4. After considering the material placed on record, we find that though in response to various queries, the assessed replied before the Assessing Officer. However, according to the Assessing Officer, complete information and details were not submitted. However, before the learned CIT (A), despite several notices, the assessee has not responded except for seeking adjournment on the ground that they are in process of compilation of paper book and drafting of written submissions. Prima facie, there are some latches on the part of the assessee, however, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem fit that all the issues raised by the assessee should be restored ITA No.1809/Del/2023 3 back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in accordance with law and assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and to file the relevant details and explanation as required by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04 th March, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [M. BALAGANESH] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 04.03.2024 ff^ ff^ff^ ff^ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi