J.S. Finvest(p) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO ward-13(1), New Delhi

ITA 9423/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6578 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9423/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 J. S. Finvest (P) Ltd. 724-B, Plot No.3, Jaina Tower-1, District Centre, Janakpuri, West Delhi, New Delhi PAN No.AABCJ4125H Vs ITO Ward- 13 (1) New Delhi (APPELLAN (RESPONDENT) Appellant Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Shri Prince Bansal, CA Respondent Sh. Surender Pal, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 16/06/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 16/06/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-5, New Delhi dated 30.09.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2016-17. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by erroneously 2 assuming that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition assuming the appellant is not interest in pursuing the appeal even though the appellant did not receive the said notices. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.31,00,76,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act even when indisputably the aforesaid sum was not received during the year under consideration. 3. A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) show that the CIT(A) is heavily influenced by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. N. Bhattacharjee and Another 118 ITR 461. We further find that the CIT(A) has also followed the decision of the Hon’ble M. P. High Court 223 ITR 480 and without going much on the merits of the case dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. In our considered view the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and should have verified whether the notices issued by him were actually served upon the assessee or not. 3 5. Before us the counsel for the assessee fairly stated that he is willing to appear before the CIT(A) if the date is given by the Bench here itself. 6. The DR put no objection. 7. In the interest of justice and fair play we restore this appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) on 29.09.2022 in whatever mode the appeal may be heard by the first appellate authority. 8. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 9. Decision announced in the open court on 16.06.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. Private Secretary* Date:- 16.06.2022 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI