Srishti Azad Trading & Exim Private Limited, Delhi V. ACIT(OSD), Ward-24(2), Delhi

ITA 722/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0425 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68; 251

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.722/Del./2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) Srishti Azad Trading & Exim Private Ltd., vs. ACIT (OSD), E-1/270, Block – E, Shiv Ram Park, Ward 24 (2), Nangloi, Delhi. Delhi – 110 041. (PAN : AAOCS5335D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date of Order : 05.07.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-8, New Delhi dated 03.12.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in this appeal are as under :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law by not giving proper opportunity to the Appellant company without appreciating the fact that the Appellant sought time for ITA No.722/Del./2020 2 appointing counsel to appear before the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The Ld CIT (A) had erred in law in dismissing the Appeal without taking into account that all relevant documents were submitted with the Ld AO at the time of Assessment. The Ld. CIT (A) AO dismissed the appeal in spite of the Appellant mentioning that the documents required by AO like confirmations & bank statements were duly submitted. 3. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made in respect of unexplained cash u/s 68 be deleted.” 3. Consequent upon assessment order dated 26.12.2018 framed in this case, where addition was made for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) noted that within a span of about 1&1/2 month, 4 emails were sent to the assessee. But there was no response. There is no mention of any notice being served upon the assessee. Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. After doing so, he further also held that on merits also, he is confirming the order of AO as there was no representation before him. 4. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard ld. DR of the Revenue and perused the record. It transpires that on the basis of claim of service of notice through emails, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and held that due to non-prosecution, he was dismissing the appeal on merits also. We note that ld. CIT (A) has no power to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution u/s 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). ITA No.722/Del./2020 3 Further, the service of notice on assessee is not on firm grounds. Hence we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and remit the issue back to ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5 th day of July, 2022 after the conclusion of the hearing. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 5 TH day of July, 2022 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-8, New Delhi. 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.