Sudhir Chauhan, Gurgaon V. ITO WARD 4(3), Gurgaon

ITA 3264/DEL/2019

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sudhir Chauhan against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon, which confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary grievances included the ex parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A), confirmation of additions under sections 68, 14A of the Income Tax Act, and other disallowances related to business expenses and personal use of assets. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee despite several notices and proceeded ex parte. However, it was decided that the CIT(A) had not provided a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300860 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-04-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Proportionate interest
• Section: 68; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3264/DEL/2019 [A.Y. 2015-16] Sudhir Chauhan Vs. ITO 103, AKD Tower, Sec-14, Gurgaon Ward – 4 (3) Haryana 122001 Gurgaon PAN No. ABLPC5721G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 03.01.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2015-16. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in 2 law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and thus confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)has erred in lawand on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex parte and thus confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO without providing proper opportunity^ the appellant of being heard in the matter. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)has erred in lawand on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and thus confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO without appreciating the grounds 1 to 7 taken by the appellant in the appeal. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 40,37,500/- u/s 68 of the Act, relating to expenditure on lease of horses relating to earlier/current year treated as capital expenditure in place of treating as a revenue expense by the appellant without appreciation of that section 68 was not applicable in the case and no addition could be made or upheld. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 17,61,842/- disallowing proportionate interest amount paid on loans, not utilized for the purpose of business, whereas all interest free loans out of total loans were given for the purpose of business expediency. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred by confirming addition of Rs. 2,80,943/-u/s 14A of the Act ignoring the submission of appellant that investment have been made out of own fund and no income was received during the year. 3 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred by confirming, addition of Rs. 3,30,798/- on ad hoc basis assuming personal use of car & Telephone expenses made by A.O on the basis of presumption or surmises. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and delete any grounds of appeal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of several notices since 09.05.2022, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. 4. The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we find that when the appeal was listed for hearing the assessee sought adjournment but the same was denied by the CIT(A) who proceeded by deciding the appeal exparte. 5. In our considered opinion the CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard , therefore, in the interest of justice we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(A) with a direction to afford a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh. 4 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Decision announced in the open court on 12.09.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: SEPTEMBER, 2023. *Neha* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi