Jewel Palace Private Limited, New Delhi V. ITO Ward 13(3), New Delhi

ITA 833/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Jewel Palace Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices during the COVID period. The assessee contested this decision, highlighting that adjournment requests were made and not considered. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered these requests and thus remitted the case for a fresh hearing on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121592 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.833/DEL/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 Jewel Palace Pvt. Ltd. E-38, Lajpat Nagar-II, Delhi v. ITO Ward-13(3) Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACJ7029B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aman Garg, CA Respondent by: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 14 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 14 09 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: T he capti oned app eal has b ee n f il ed b y the A sse ssee a gainst the order of t he C o mmi ss ione r of Income Tax (A ppeals), National Facel ess A ppeal Cent re, D elhi [ ‘C IT (A ) ’ i n shor t] da te d 03. 03.2023 aris i ng from the assess me nt order da ted 10. 12. 20 19 passed b y t he A ssessing O ffic er (A O ) unde r Sec tion 1 43(3 ) o f the Income T ax A ct, 1961 (the Act ) conc er ning A Y 2017-18. 2. T he grounds of appeal ra ise d by the assesse e read as un der: “1 . Th at t h e o r d e r o f l e ar n e d C o m m is s i on e r o f I nc o me - t ax ( A p p e al s ) i s a ga i n s t f ac t s a n d l a w . 2 . T h a t th e l e ar n e d C om m i s s io n e r of I n c om e -t a x (A p pe a l s ) i s n ot j u s t i f ie d i n di s po s i ng of f t he a pp e al w i t h ou t gi v i ng r e a s on a bl e o pp o r t un i t y o f r e p r e s e nt a t io n i n as m u c h a s t he a ppe al h as b e e n d i s po s e d o ff e x - p a r t y w i t ho u t c o n s i de r in g t he f a c t t ha t t he d a t e of h e ar i n g i . e . , l 5 . 01 . 2 0 2 1 f al l s i n C o v i d p e r i od a n d e v e n f o r t he ot h e r I.T.A. No.833/Del/2023 2 t w o d at e s t h e ap pe l l a nt h a d ap p l ie d f or ad j ou r n m e n ts w h i c h h av e n ot b e e n c o n s i de r e d a nd t h e ap pe a l h as be e n di s p o s ed of f w i th o ut c o ns i d e r i n g t he m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e an d t h e s ub m i s s io n s m ad e du r i n g t h e c ou r s e of t h e a s s e s s m e nt p r o c e e di n gs . H e n c e t her e is n o a pp l i c at i o n o f m i n d 3 . T h a t th e l e ar n e d C om m i s s io n e r of I n c om e -t a x (A p pe a l s ) i s n ot j u s t i f ie d i n c on f i r m i n g t he ad d it i o n o f R s . 1 , 35 , 68, 5 00 / - b e i n g s a l e s m a d e & h ol d i ng i t t o b e a c a s h c r e di t un de r s e c t i on 6 8 of t he I nc o m e - ta x A c t , 19 6 1 w i t h o u t c o n s id e r i n g t he m e r i t s of s u b m i s s i o ns . ” 3. When t he ma tter was ca lle d for hea ri ng, t he l d. counsel f or the as sessee submi tte d at the ou tse t t hat the a dditi on m ade b y the A ssessi ng O ff ice r a mou nt ing to Rs . 1, 35,68, 500/ - on account of une xpla ined cas h depos its i n the bank accoun t du ri ng de monetizati on peri od is w holl y unj usti fied in the l i ght of th e di re ct a nd circum sta nt ial evi dences placed be for e th e Assessi ng O fficer. 4. A ggrie ve d, the ass essee preferred appea l befo re t he CIT (A ). The C IT(A ) how eve r pass ed an e x- part e orde r wit hout disc ussi ng the merits of the case s ole ly for the reason t ha t the as sessee has fa il ed t o fi le r espons es to notices i ssue d on t hree oc casi ons as sti pu la ted in t he firs t appel la te orde r. 5. T o rebut the obs er vati ons of the CIT (A ), the l d. cou nsel adverted ou r at tention t o the adj ournme nt let te rs fi led a gains t eac h noti ces so i ssued. It w as conte nded tha t CIT (A ) has omitted t o take n ote of the re que st for adjou rnm ent and it is not a case of no re pl y per se as alleged b y the C IT (A ). T he l d. counse l thus pleaded violation of pri nc iples of n atural j us tice and ur ge d f or re mi t ti ng the matter bac k for logica l conclus io n in t he matt er afte r consi derin g the re pl y of t he assess ee on merits. I.T.A. No.833/Del/2023 3 6. In the l ight of the sub mi ss io ns mad e on behalf of the a ssessee and on pe rus al of t he case rec ords, w e find jus tific at ion in the plea advan ced on beha lf of the ass essee. It is no ticed that t he C IT (A ) has iss ue d notices for h ea ri ng on th re e occas ions and the assessee has dul y repl ied o n a ll occasio ns a nd sought adj ournment. T o o ur mi nd, the C IT ( A) act ed hu rri e dl y wit hout giving pr ope r opportunit y. T he re can be a va riet y of reaso ns for non c omp lia nce in s uch a s hor t pe riod. Havi ng re ga rd to t he fac t that as sessee h as dul y att en de d bef ore t he Assess ing Of fice r, it cannot b e ordinari l y presumed that as sessee has w ill full y disobe ye d t he no tic e of hear ing t o its ow n detri me nt. C oupled w it h these, the CIT (A ) has ought to be a dj udi cate d t he appea l on meri ts aft er exa mi ning the ma teri al on rec ord. H ence, guided b y the principles of obj ect iv it y, fa ir nes s a nd j us tic e, w e cons ide r it just and pro per to remit the ma tter back to the file of t he CIT ( A) fo r f resh a djudicat io n in accorda nce w ith law after gi vi ng pro per oppor tunit y to the assessee. 7. In the resu lt, the appea l of t he a ssessee is al low ed for sta tis ti ca l purpos es . Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/09/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [YOGESH KUMAR US] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /09/2023 Prabhat