9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1016 - AT - Income TaxEx parte order of CIT(A) - AO completed assessment in terms of section 144 - Addition u/s 68 - assessee has submitted that there was a change of address whereas the Ld. CIT(A) sent all the notices at the old address and therefore, no compliance could be made before the Learned CIT(A) - HELD THAT - Looking to the reasonable cause in putting non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the opinion that assessee must be provided one opportunity to explain its affairs. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of the justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding afresh. Both the assessee and the Assessing Officer shall be provided adequate opportunity of being heard. In the form No. 36 filed before the Tribunal, the assessee has provided its address as 203, Turab Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) -201001. In the case of the assessee, insolvency proceedings have been initiated and Sh. Anup Kumar has been appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) CIT(A) may serve notice accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues involved:
1. Validity of the order of the Learned CIT(A) 2. Service of notices to the assessee 3. Compliance with the appellate proceedings 4. Dismissal of the appeal due to non-representation 5. Addition of income by the Assessing Officer 6. Grounds raised by the appellant 7. Opportunity for the assessee to explain 1. Validity of the order of the Learned CIT(A): The appeal by the assessee challenged the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2007-08. The grounds raised included issues regarding the legality and factual accuracy of the order. 2. Service of notices to the assessee: The assessee claimed that there was no service of notices on the alleged dates specified in the impugned order. The communication of the appeal order by the ITAT, Delhi Benches, to a specific address was also a point of contention. 3. Compliance with the appellate proceedings: The assessee failed to comply with the appellate proceedings, leading to dismissal by the Learned CIT(A) due to non-representation. The appellant did not attend the proceedings or file any submissions, resulting in an ex parte order. 4. Dismissal of the appeal due to non-representation: The Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the non-appearance and non-submission by the appellant. The appellant was given multiple opportunities to represent their case, but no compliance was observed. 5. Addition of income by the Assessing Officer: The Assessing Officer made additions to the income of the assessee under sections 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions were related to the source of share capital, loans received, and cash deposits in the bank account, which the appellant failed to explain. 6. Grounds raised by the appellant: The grounds raised by the appellant included challenges to the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the procedural aspects of the case. The appellant sought to contest the additions and the jurisdiction of the authorities. 7. Opportunity for the assessee to explain: The ITAT Delhi provided an opportunity for the assessee to explain their affairs by setting aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) and restoring the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide a new address for communication, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, providing a chance for the assessee to present their case and address the issues raised during the assessment.
|
