Takshila Retail Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 887/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3516 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.887/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Takshila Retail Pvt. Ltd. B-35, Dewan House, Ajay Enclave, New Delhi-110 018 PAN : AACCB 6795 J Vs. DCIT Circle – 25(1) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Manjeet Singh Rathore, Adv. Revenue by Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 25.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.11.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:- 2 3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of Trading of readymade garments and fabrics. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 declaring loss of Rs.53,55,116/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.26,57,45,915/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 23.11.2016 in Appeal No.TR 73/16-17 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the order passed by the Ld CIT (A) summarily dismissing the appeal mainly on the ground of non prosecution is illegal, bad in law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal even without considering that the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO was also in violation of principle of natural justice. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the below mentioned additions: S.No Amount Details 1. Rs. 10,16,00,000/- u/s 68 being unsecured loans received 2. Rs. 15,61,76,820/- u/s 68 being receipt of share capital 3. Rs. 65,29,721/- Being advance written off by appellant company 4. Rs. 2,80,925/- Being security deposits written off 5. Rs. 65,13,564/- Being Bad debts written off by the appellant company 3 4. That the Appellant Company craves the right to amend, append, delete any or all grounds of appeal.” 4. On the date of hearing a request for adjournment was made by AR vide letter dated 25.04.2022. The request for adjournment is rejected. We thus proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 5. Before us, Learned DR fairly submitted that CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeals of the assessee on merits but however submitted that since there was no appearance by assessee before CIT(A), CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The perusal of CIT(A) order reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeals without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no party should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 06.06.2019 and 4 restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issue after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Assessee is also directed to promptly furnish the details called for by the authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 28.04.2022 PY* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI