Sumeet Saluja, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-33(2), New Delhi

ITA 6235/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sumeet Saluja against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, which arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention in the appeal was the addition of Rs. 55,24,218 under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, invoking the doctrine of 'vigilantibus non dormientibus', which was contested by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the grounds of appeal on merits and thus restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121668 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Premkumar Arjund as Luthra HUF (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANJIT YADAV
• Section: 2; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6235/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Sumeet Saluja D-5/5, Vasant Vihar New Delhi. v. ITO Ward-33(2), New Delhi TAN/PAN: CWAPS0602J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Anjit Yadav, AR Respondent by: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 06 06 2023 Date of pronouncement: 12 06 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: T he ca pti oned a ppeal has been file d at t he i ns tance o f the assessee aga inst the o rde r o f t he C ommi ss ione r of In come Ta x (A ppea ls )-X I, N ew D elhi [ ‘C IT (A )’ in s hort] dated 23. 01. 20 17 ar isi ng from th e assess ment order da ted 27. 12.2 016 pa s sed b y the A ssessi ng O ff ic er (A O ) unde r Secti on 143(3) of the Income Ta x A ct, 1961 ( the A ct) conce rni ng A Y 2014 -15. 2. A s per its grou nds of a ppeal, the asse ssee has cha lle nge d th e addi ti on ma de by t he A ssess i ng O fficer to the tune of Rs. 55, 24,218/- un der Sec ti on 2 (22) (e ) of the Act. 3. W h e n t h e m a t t e r w a s c a l le d fo r he a r i n g , no ne ap pe ar e d f or t h e a ss es se e . A cc or d i n g l y, th e ma t te r i s pr oc e ed ed e x -pa r te . I.T.A No.6235/Del/2019 2 4. O n pe rusa l o f the or de r of the C IT (A), w e st ra ightawa y noti ce t ha t t he C IT (A) has dismi ssed the a ppeal before i t f or w ant of prose cuti on an d no natt en dance by a ve ry c r ypti c or der. The CIT (A ) eventual l y decli ne d t o e nte rt ain the a dj ournme nt in voke d the d oct ri ne of vigi la nti bus non dormi ent ib us wh erein i ts is ordained so- • L aw w ill h el p o nly those w ho a re vi gi la nt. Law w ill not assist those wh o are careless of hi s/her ri ght. In or der to clai m one’s ri ght, she /he must be w atchf ul of his /her right. O nl y t hose pers ons, w ho a re w atchful and careful o f usi ng his /he r ri ghts, ar e ent itled to the ben ef its of l aw. • A person who has kept mu m dur ing the s tatutor y pe riod cannot c lai m for t he enforce me nt of ri ght afte r t he st atutor y li mi tat io n. 5. We st ra ightw ay refer t o Secti on 250(6) of the A ct whic h enjo ins that the C IT (A ) sh al l st at e the po ints for determinat ion be fore i t a nd t he decis ion s hall be rende re d on s uch po ints alon gw it h reas ons for t he decisi on. Thus, i t is i ncumben t upo n the CIT (A ) to de al w it h th e gro unds on me rits even in ex par te o rde r. In view of Sec tion 250 (6) of t he A ct, t he C IT(A ) has no pow er to dis mi ss an a ppeal on ac count o f non -prosecutio n. This view is als o taken by t he H on’b le Bomb ay H igh C ourt in cas e of C IT vs. Prem kumar Arj und as L ut hra H UF (2 017) 29 1 CTR 614 (Bom . ). A ba re glance o f t he orde r of the C IT (A ) show s t hat CIT (A ) has not addressed i tse l f o n the va rious poi nts placed for its de terminat ion at a ll a nd d is mis s ed t he ap peal of assessee for de fault in non appea ra nce. N eed less to sa y, t he CIT (A ) p la ys role of both I.T.A No.6235/Del/2019 3 adju dicati ng au tho ri t y as wel l as a ppel la te autho rity. Thus, the CIT (A ) c ould n ot ha ve s hunne d t he appe al fo r no n-compli ance w ithout address i ng the iss ue on mer it s. 6. In t he total it y of t he circums ta nces, w e cons ider it j us t and exped ie nt to res tore t he matter bac k to the C IT (A ) i n the l arge r inte res t of j us ti ce w it h a view to ena bl e t he assess ee t o ava il pro per opp ort uni t y fo r dis posal of appea l b y t he CIT (A ) on va ri ous points. Ne edl ess t o s ay, the assessee s ha ll exte nd full c o- ope ration t o t he CIT (A ) w i thout a ny demur, f ai ling w hich, the CIT (A ) s ha ll at li be rt y t o conclude the appella te proc eedings i n accorda nce wit h l aw. H ence, the or de r of the CIT (A ) appea le d agains t, is set as ide a nd al l the is s ues ra ised i n the i mpugne d appea l a re res tored back t o t he f ile of t he C IT(A ) for fres h adju dicati on i n accordance w ith l aw afte r givi ng reaso nable opportunit y of hea ri ng to the asses se e. 7. In t he result, appeal of the as sesse e i s al lowed for s tati stical pur pos es. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/06/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [CHANDRA MOHAN GARG] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /06/2023 Prabhat