Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Shri Ramit Vohra, Prop. M/s. Impact Enterprises, 9210/5, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle : 63 (1) New Delhi.
 Smt. Bhavana Jain, Prop. M/s Akash Metal Industries, outside Barsi Gate, Hansi, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar, Haryana
 M/s Pearey Lal & Sons (E.P.) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak.
 Rajvanti Devi R/o Liwan Sonipat w/o Phool Kumar 96, R Model Town, Sonipat. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sonipat.
 M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Ward 6(2), (Old Jurisdiction)
 Ram Naresh Sikarwar, Ballabgarh. Vs. ITO, Ward-II(2), Faridabad.
 District Manager, HAFED, Site No.01, Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, Haryana Vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal, Haryana
 Ravi Kumar Verma C/o. Pushkar Jain, Advocate, 115-C, Jain Nagar, Merut City-2 Uttar Pradesh Vs. ACIT Circle-2 Mewat
 Poonam Jain, A-2/15, F.F., Phase-3 Ashok Vihar, New Delhi Vs. Ito, Ward 34(4), Room No. 713, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi
 AKT IMPEX PVT. LTD., D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI Vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), NEW DELHI
 Nitin Gupta Shree Ji Jewellers, Shop No. 1168/3 and 4, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk Vs. ITO Ward-47(4) New Delhi
 MG Metalloy Pvt. Ltd, B-16, Sector-2, Noida Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida
 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 36(1), New Delhi. Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Sawhney, C-56, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi.
 MR. SUBHASH CHANDER, C/O SURAJ BHAN NAIN, ADVOCATE, H.NO. 203, SECTOR-27, GURUGRAM, HARYANA Vs. ITO, WARD-4, HISAR
 Ranjan Kumar Ghai RRA Tax India D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi VS. DCIT Central Circle-I Gurgaon

M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Ward 6(2), (Old Jurisdiction)
September, 08th 2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

BEFORE,
SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A No.7590/Del/2019

(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13)

M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer(E),

(Formerly known as Good Life Ward 6(2),

Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. (Old Jurisdiction)

D-13, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, East

Punjabi Bagh, ITO,

New Delhi-110 026 Ward No.3,

New Delhi.

(New Jurisdiction)

PAN-AADCG 1017H (Respondent)
(Appellant)

Appellant By None

Respondent by None (Application Rejected)

Date of Hearing 17.08.2021

Date of Pronouncement 07.09.2021

Hearing conducted via Webex

ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order

dated 28.03.2018 of CIT(A)-7, New Delhi pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year.

The order is assailed on various grounds including ground No.2 which reads as

under:

“2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Learned CIT(A) is
bad both the eye of law and on facts as the same has been passed without having
jurisdiction, the same has been passed without having jurisdiction, hence the ex-parte
order passed by the CIT(A) without providing an opportunity of being heard is totally
wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed.”
ITA No.7590 /Del/2019
Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the parties. Sr. DR
Mr. R.K. Gupta has sent an adjournment application in all the 35 cases listed for
hearing today by stating that :

“I have to attend personal compelling circumstances today. Therefore, I am not able to attend
today’s proceedings.
Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the case may kindly be adjourned to any convenient date. For
this act of kindness, the petitioner shall be grateful.”
3. The said request was rejected in the light of the factual matrix as available
on record in the context of the aforementioned ground. Similarly assessee's
adjournment was also rejected considering the material on record.
4. A perusal of the order shows that the additions made by the Assessing
Officer which were challenged in appeal before the CIT(A) were dismissed as the
assessee remained unrepresented before the CIT(A). Relying upon the decision of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar,
reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP) among others, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte.
5. Aggrieved by this, the appeal has been filed. Specific ground No. 2 is being
taken up for consideration.

6. A perusal of para-4 of the impugned order shows that various opportunities
were given to the assessee, however, despite the same the assessee remain
unrepresented. It is further seen that the address before the Assessing Officer was
that ;

65, Bentinck Street, Asha Chamber,
Room No.2C, Kolkata-700 001.
Flat No.3C, 76/3, Chrisopher Road,
Kolkata-700 046.

Page 2 of 4
ITA No.7590 /Del/2019
Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

6.1 The address mentioned in the impugned order, it is seen is shown to be as
under :

M/s. Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Flat No.3C, 76/3, Chrisopher Road,
Kolkata-700 046.

6.2 It is further seen that in the memo appeals filed before the ITAT the address
for sending notices etc. has been shown as under:

D-13, Bhagwan Dass Nagar,
East Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110 026.
6.3 Accordingl y, it appears that lack of representation may have been on
account of confusion/change of address etc. Notwithstanding this fact, even
otherwise the order passed does not meet the statutory requirements as set out in
sub section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The provision mandates
that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority not only should be in writing
but should also state the points for determination; the decision thereon and the
reasons for the decision. These requirements in the facts of the present case, it is
seen are not met. The relevant provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of
completeness :
Section 250 – Procedure in appeal.
xx x
xx x

(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in
writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the
reason for the decision.

Page 3 of 4
ITA No.7590 /Del/2019
Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

6.4 As noticed earlier, even otherwise the benefit of doubt can be given to the
assessee for remaining unrepresented due to lack of communication arising on
account of change of address etc.


7. Accordingly, for the reasons set out hereinabove in the interests of
substantial justice, the impugned order is set aside and remanded back to the file
of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law
after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was
pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via
Webex.

8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 07TH September, 2021.

Dated: 07/09/2021 Sd/-
PK/Ps/Poonam (CHD) (DIVA SINGH)
Kavita Arora, SPS JUDICIAL MEMBER

Copy forwarded to: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. Appellant ITAT NEW DELHI
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT

Page 4 of 4

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting