Avtar Kukreja, Faridabad V. ACIT, Circle-2, Faridabad

ITA 214/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108563 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 214/Del/2020 Avtar Kukreja, Faridabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 214/DEL/2020 (A.Y 2008-09) Shri Kapil Kukreja, Legal Heir of Late Shri Avtar Kukreja, House No. 149, Sector : 21-A, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 001. PAN No. AFKPK9111P (APPELLANT) Vs. ACIT, Circle – 2, Faridabad. (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) Faridabad, dated 31.10.2012. Assessee by : N o n e; Department by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. D. R.; Date of Hearing 01.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06 .02.2023 2 ITA No. 214/Del/2020 Avtar Kukreja, Faridabad 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in upholding an addition of Rs. 7,20,38,384/- on account of unexplained deposits in appellant's bank account. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was further not justified in "dismissing the appeal as un-admitted". 3. The observation of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal" is unfounded, uncalled for and incorrect. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there were circumstances beyond the control of appellant due to which the appellant could not appear before him. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not to have dism issed the appeal, instead, he should have decided the appeal on merits and material available on records. Moreover, he should have given weightage and credence to the evidence already submitted. 6. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is biased, prejudiced, bad in law, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation was conducted at the residence of the assessee on 07/09/2006. The assessment order for Assessment Year 2007-08 was passed by ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad on 30/12/2008 determining the total income of the assessee at 3 ITA No. 214/Del/2020 Avtar Kukreja, Faridabad Rs.1,25,26,590/- which included addition of Rs. 93,91,969/- on account of unexplained deposit in various bank accounts of the assessee. The assessee did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09, hence, the notice /s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In compliance of the said notice, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs.29,44,160/- showing income under heads of business, house property, long term capital gain and other sources. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny and assessment order came to be passed on 30/12/2010 u/s 143(3) of the Act, by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,49,82,550/-. 4. As against the assessment order dated 30/12/2010, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). During the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A), the representative of the assessee appeared and sought adjournments on several occasions and the Ld.CIT(A) had also given last and final opportunities to the assessee but the assessee has not responded to the notices. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 31/10/2012 by relying on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (381 ITD 320). 5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 31/10/2012 the assessee is before this Tribunal on the grounds mentioned above. 6. None appeared for the assessee even after issuing several notices. By considering the issue involved in the appeal, we deem it fit to hear the Ld. DR and decide the matter. 7. Heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gave out thoughtful consideration. The Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal has not decided the issue involved in the appeal on merits. The appeal has been dismissed as ‘un-admitted’ since the assessee or the representative of the assessee had not prosecuted the appeal. The ratio relied by the CIT(A) is of 4 ITA No. 214/Del/2020 Avtar Kukreja, Faridabad Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is no more a good law and it is settled position that the Revenue Authority and the even the Tribunal has to decide the appeal on merit and not suppose to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution without deciding the appeal on merit. Therefore, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on merit and also direct the assessee to appear and cooperate with the appeal proceedings for early disposal of the Appeal. Ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06 TH FEBRUARY, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 06/02/2023 *MEHTA/R.N, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 214/Del/2020 Avtar Kukreja, Faridabad