Ankur Sehgal, New Delhi V. ITO ward 45(5), New Delhi

ITA 3090/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Ankur Sehgal, an individual and proprietor of WG Exports, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, which dismissed his appeal on account of non-prosecution. The original dispute arose from the Income Tax Officer's assessment, which significantly increased Ankur Sehgal's declared income from Rs. 3,73,750 to Rs. 71,92,250 for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a speaking order on merits, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not followed the mandate of Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, which requires stating points in dispute and assigning reasons in support of conclusions. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice, noting that no party should be condemned unheard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122134 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.3090/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Ankur Sehgal 136, Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi – 110 034. PAN BEIPS1637C [vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 45(5), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.12.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, dated 26.12.2017 in Appeal No.5329/17-18/CIT(A)-15 relating to the A.Y. 2015-2016. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 2 ITA.No.3090/Del./2019 Ankur Sehgal 2.1 Assessee is an individual stated to be proprietor of WG Exports which is engaged in the business of exporting garments. The assessee electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 29.03.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 3,73,750/-. The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, vide order dated 26.12.2017 and the total income was determined at Rs. 71,92,250/- . 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.02.2019 in Appeal No. 329/17-18/CIT(A)-15 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non- prosecution of appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee now is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 3 ITA.No.3090/Del./2019 Ankur Sehgal 1. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred both on facts and in law, in computing the total Income of the Assessee at Rs. 71,92,250/-, against the declared Income of Rs 3,73,750/- as per Income Tax Return 2. The Ld. A.O. has failed to produce any material or evidence in support to establish any escapement of Income by the Assessee. 3. That the additions have been made on conjectures and mere suspicion and surmises which is in contravention to the established practices and procedures in tax law. 4. That Ld. AO failed to comprehend that the burden which lay upon the Assessee to establish the sources of credits and nature thereof had duly been established, when the Assessee had duly furnished the undisputed necessary documentary evidences in support thereof. 5. That the Ld. AO has further erred in ignoring the material bought on record by the Assessee. 6. That in any case and without prejudice, no adverse inference could have been drawn against the Assessee, 4 ITA.No.3090/Del./2019 Ankur Sehgal merely on the basis of self made assumptions and irrelevant facts and without bringing any material fact or finding to the contrary placed on record for Assessee rebuttal. 7. That before going ahead with the impugned addition, learned A failed to give the opportunity of being heard which is in clear violation and contravention of the principle of natural justice. 8. That the Ld CIT (A) also passed the order without giving us proper opportunity of being heard. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 4. On the date of hearing the counsel of the assessee made an application of adjournment. However, considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed any speaking order on merits and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee we reject the adjournment application and proceed to dispose of the appeal after considering the material on record and hearing the DR. 5 ITA.No.3090/Del./2019 Ankur Sehgal 5. Before us, Learned DR fairly submitted that CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal of the assessee on merits but however submitted that since there was no appearance by assessee before CIT(A), CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 6. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. 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 6 ITA.No.3090/Del./2019 Ankur Sehgal set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 15.02.2019 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. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28 th day of December, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- [CHANDRA MOHAN GARG] [ANIL CHATURVEDI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi, Dated 28 th December, 2022 NV/- 7 ITA.No.3090/Del./2019 Ankur Sehgal Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. Ld. CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT concerned 5. DR ITAT “A” Bench, Delhi 6. Guard File //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches, Delhi.