IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `F': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 2561/Del/2014
Assessment Year : 2009-10
Rekha Goyal Vs. ITO
Prop. Ravi Enterprises Ward-3,
180, Prem Nagar, Hisar.
Hisar.
(PAN ANBPG2335G)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Gautam Jain, FCA
Respondent by : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
ORDER
PER DIVA SINGH, JM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated
10.2.2014 of CIT (A) Rohtak pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year. Both the
parties were heard only in respect of ground 1 raised by the assessee which
reads as under :-
1. "That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Rohtak has
grossly erred both in law and on facts in disposing off the appeal ex-
parte and, without granting any fair and proper opportunity of being
heard to the appellant.
1.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed
to appreciate that there was reasonable cause for the appellant for
not causing appearance on the date for fixed for hearing and as
such disposal of the appeal without granting fair, meaningful and
proper opportunity is untenable.
2 ITA 2561/Del/2014
1.2. That even otherwise the order disposing off the appeal expartee is
a vitiated order in as much as the learned Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) has no power to dispose of the appeal in limine.
2. That without prejudice to the aforesaid the learned Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming
an addition of Rs. 6,78,870/- u/s 69 of the Act which apparently was
an addition based on double taxation.
3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further
erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under
section 234A and 234B of the Act respectively."
2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on
record. It is seen that the assessee declared an income of Rs. 1,57,850/- by way
of filing its return which was subjected to scrutiny after issuance of notices u/s
143(2) / 142(1). As a result of various additions made in the assessment order
u/s 143(3) the income was assessed at Rs. 9,16,720/-. The assesee assailed the
action of the AO before the CIT(A) by way of an appeal. However, after
requesting for adjournments which were granted the assessee did not put any
appearance. In view thereof the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine
holding that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. In the light of
the above facts, considering the requirements of section 250 (6) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 which mandates that the CIT(A) while disposing the appeal shall
pass an order in writing setting out the points for determination , the decision
thereon and the reasons for the decision, we hold that the said requirements of
law have not been met. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and
restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a
3 ITA 2561/Del/2014
speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable
opportunity of being heard.
3. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
as per the pronouncement made in the open court at the time of hearing itself.
Pronounced in the open court on 3rd February, 2015.
sd/- sd/-
(R.S. SYAL) (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 3.2.2015
Veena
Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. Appellant 2. Respondent
3. CIT 4. CIT(A)
5. DR By Order
Deputy Registrar, ITAT.
|
