IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-2”: NEW DELHI

ITA No. 2383/Del/2014 AY : 2008-09
Mohit Vohra (Appellant) vs ACIT (Respondent)
Date of Order: 26-10-2015

ORDER

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi dated 19.2.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.

2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without discussing the grounds on merits which is unjustified, illegal and against the provisions of the Act.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in stating that the assessee has not attended the hearings on various dates when the assessee has attended and taken adjournments on two occasions on receipt of hearing notices and the other notices were not received by the assessee (affidavit enclosed), which is unjustified, illegal and against the provisions of the Act.

3. Without prejudice to above, in the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 40,000/- made by the AO holding it to be cash deposit in HDFC Bank (date not mentioned) when there is no such cash deposit in the said bank, which is unjustified, illegal and against the provisions of the Act.

4. Without prejudice to above, in the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 69,000/- made by the AO holding it to be cash deposit in HDFC Bank (date not mentioned) when there is no such cash deposit in the said bank, which is unjustified, illegal and against the provisions of the Act.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, while the assessee did not get justice from the Assessing Officer, he was denied the principles of natural justice by the Ld. CIT (A) also, which is unjustified, illegal and against the provisions of the Act.

6. The assessee prays that the matter be remanded back to the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh consideration.

7. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

8. The grounds of appeal taken are without prejudice to each other

3. The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith relevant records available with the Appeal field. I am of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating its claim before him. For the sake of convenience the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

“2. None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing fixed on the following dates, despite issue of notice by Registered Post / Speed Post, as duly served.

• Date of issued notice 31.1.2013 fixed on 20.2.2013 – none attended.

• Date of issued notice 23.8.2013 fixed on 27.9.2013 – none attended.

• Date of issued notice 22.1.2013 fixed on 11.12.2013 – Adjourned to 29.1.2014 on request letter. Also on 29.1.2014 adjourned to 18.2.2014 on request letter – none appeared on 18.2.2014.

3. It has been held in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ld. Vs. DCIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 204 (Punjab & Haryana) that where revenue dispatched notice and the fact that notice was not received back, the same raise a presumption of service of notice u/s. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 i.e. presumption as to valid service of notice holds good if same is not returned back to department.

4. Therefore, it gives an impression that the assessee is not interested in pressing its appeal. The appellant has time and again taken the plea in its request letters that since required information are still pending for the appeal and are under preparation/ collection, the matter may be adjourned and therefore, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed by the appellant itself. I therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal in default, preferred by the assessee, placing reliance on the following cases.

• CIT vs. Multiplan (India) (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.)

• Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar (1997) 223 ITR 490 (MP).

5. Assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.”

5. After perusing the aforesaid impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), I find that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order. He summarily dismissed the appeal by holding that assessee being unrepresented. In my considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in this regard. Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issue on merits. It is a settled law that even the administrative orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Hence, I am of the view that in this case the issues in dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issues in dispute afresh and pass a proper and speaking order considering the merits of the case. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26/10/2015.

Sd/-
[H.S. SIDHU]
JUDICIAL MEMBER