1 ITA No. 854/Del/14
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `SMC ' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A .No.-854/Del/2014
(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06)
Aerens Estate P. Ltd. DCIT
C/o Ravi Gupta, Advocates, E-6A Central Circle-8
Kailash Colony vs New Delhi
New Delhi
AAECA4459N (RESPONDENT)
(APPELLANT)
Appellant by Sh. Rajesh Jain, CA
Respondent by Sh. Robin Rawal, JCIT
Date of Hearing 24.06.2015
Date of Pronouncement 26
.06.2015
ORDER
PER S. V. MEHROTRA, AM
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order dated 5th December 13 of
CIT(A) VI, , New Delhi in Appeal No. 134/12-13.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.
" 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-VI, New Delhi
has erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition without affording a
reasonable and adequate opportunity to the appellant.
2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-VI, New Delhi
has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal without taking into
consideration the written submissions already filed before CIT(A) XXXII,
New Delhi, where the appeal was being earlier heard.
3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-VI, New Delhi
has erred on facts and in law in sustaining the additions made in the
assessment order which are not applicable in the case of the appellant
2 ITA No. 854/Del/14
comprising of Rs.5,28,319/- on account of disallowance of interest paid and
Rs.2,02,500/- on account of compensation paid.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-VI, New Delhi, is erroneous, both in
law and on the facts.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify withdraw,
amend, substitute any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of
hearing."
3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee's jurisdiction lay
with CIT(A) XXXII and not with CIT(A) VI, who dismissed the assessee's appeal
ex-parte in limine. He submitted that no notice was received by assessee and the
Ld. CIT(A) order was also served through assessing officer.
4. I have considered the submissions of the both the parties, Ld. CIT(A) has
observed that notices were issued and served by registered post/speed post. He has
given the dates of issue of notice. He has dismissed the assessee's appeal applying
the following case laws:-
· CIT VS. Multiplan (India)(P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del)
· Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)
5. Thus, the assessee's appeal has not been decided on merit. Moreover,
submission of Ld. Counsel is that the impugned order as noted earlier, is without
jurisdiction. In these circumstances I set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore
the matter back to his file for deciding the appeal de novo after considering the
assessee's submissions regarding correct jurisdiction of Ld. CIT(A).
6. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 26th of June 2015.
Sd/-
(S. V. MEHROTRA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated:- 26 /06/2013
*R. Naheed*
3 ITA No. 854/Del/14
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI
Date
1. Draft dictated on 24.06.2015 PS
2. Draft placed before author PS
25.06.2015
3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM
second member
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM
Member.
5. Approved Draft comes to the .06.2015 PS/PS
Sr.PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk .06.2015 PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head
Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.
4 ITA No. 854/Del/14
|
