Richmondd Infratech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi V. ITO ward 21(3), New Delhi

ITA 2372/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9577 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2372/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Richmondd Infratech Pvt. Ltd. C-7, Pushpanjali Enclave Pitampura, Delhi- 110 034 PAN-AAECR 7650J Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-21(3) Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh.Yashobant Das, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 07/01/2019 for Assessment Year 2015-16. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: ITA No.2372/Del/2019 Richmondd Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 “1. That the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) deserves to be quashed since the same was not in accordance with the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is illegal. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO was not justified in making an addition of Rs.50,39,189/- by disallowing the depreciation claimed in the return of income. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing with the permission of the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 27/12/2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act wherein the taxable income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.65,44,179/- as against returned income of Rs.15,04,990/-. An addition of Rs.50,39,189/- was made by the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid assessment order, on account of disallowance out of the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid assessment order. Vide impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2019, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the grounds of appeal and confirmed the aforesaid disallowance of Rs.50,39,189/- on the ground that non-compliance was exhibited by the assessee towards notices of hearing issued by the office of ITA No.2372/Del/2019 Richmondd Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 the Ld. CIT(A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order date 07/01/2019 of Ld. CIT(A). (B.1) At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in a summary manner and did not pass a speaking order. The assessee submitted that the impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A) should be set aside and the Ld. CIT(A) should be directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should be directed to pass a speaking order. The learned Sr. DR for Revenue did not dispute the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to pass speaking order on the grounds of appeal. However, she drew our attention to numerous notices of hearing issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) and contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in passing ex-parte order dismissing the assessee’s appeal. In response, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even if ITA No.2372/Del/2019 Richmondd Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 there was non-compliance to notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) was duty bound to pass a speaking order. (C) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. On perusal of section 250 (6) of Income Tax Act, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was duty bound to dispose off appeal through a speaking order. It is not in dispute that the learned CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order. Therefore, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2019 of the learned CIT(A) and direct the learned CIT(A) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, which should be a speaking order, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions. (C) In the result, for statistical purposes, this appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 30/09/2022 /- Sd /- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30/09/2022 Pk ITA No.2372/Del/2019 Richmondd Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW, DELHI