ITA NO.3746/DEL/2018 AY. 2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI B BEN CH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3746/DEL/2018 [ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 ] DLA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1 ), 107, DDA HOG MARKET, NEW DELHI RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 2 (PAN:AACCD7229F) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY : SH. AKSHAT JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. JAGDISH SINGH, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 10.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.02.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-3, NEW DELHI FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL RELATE TO THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,77,083/-, MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DATED 29.7.2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF , ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.9.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ITA NO.3746/DEL/2018 AY. 2014-15 2 RS. 8,99,45,690/- . THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES MADE THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 6,77,083/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BN BHATTACHARYA AND OTHER, 118 ITR 461 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO NON PROSECUTION. 3. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET SU BMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL DUE TO NON PROSECUTION. FURTHER, SHE HAS NO T DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 5. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH S IDES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT DUE TO NON PRO SECUTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS THE EXPARTE ORDE R. HOWEVER, SHE HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT APPROPR IATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO GRAN T ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND DECIDE THE IS SUES AS PER FACTS AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ITA NO.3746/DEL/2018 AY. 2014-15 3 SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENT, UNDER ANY PRETEXT, FAIL ING WHICH, THE LD. CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER, AS PER LAW . WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE DECISION IS ANNOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE O F BOTH THE PARTIES ON CONCLUSION OF VIRTUAL HEARING ON 10.02.2021. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.K. PANDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 10.02.2021 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI