Ashish Dham Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion:
CIT(A) erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal and passing a non-speaking order on each of the points which arose for his consideration, therefore, CIT(A) was directed to pass denovo order as per law, in accordance with Sections 250 and 251 for fresh disposal of appeal filed by assessee.
Held:
Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against additions made by AO. However, assessee did not comply with hearing notices issued by CIT(A). As assessee did not appear before CIT(A), CIT(A) concluded that assessee was not interested in prosecuting his case and he dismissed assessee’s appeal. The additions made by AO were confirmed. It was held CIT(A) erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal on merits in a summary manner, without giving detailed reasons for his order, on various grounds of appeal before him. CIT(A) also erred in passing a non-speaking order on each of the points which arose for his consideration and he failed in discharging the statutory obligation to state the reasons for his decision on each such points, which arose for determination in assessee’s appeal before CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and CIT(A) was directed to pass denovo order as per law, in accordance with Sections 250 and 251 for fresh disposal of appeal filed by assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)” for short], dated 15.02.2016, for Assessment Year 2011-12, on the following grounds:
“1. Ld. CIT (Appeals), without appreciating the correct facts of the case and without giving proper opportunity of being heard is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in not deciding the appeal on the merits of the case and as well as on validity /legality of assessment order passed by ld. Assessing Officer without having the jurisdiction over the case.
2. That Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case giving proper opportunity of being heard is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,52,000/-under section 69 of the I.T. Act on account of cash deposit in bank account made by ld. Assessing Officer.
3. That Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case and giving proper opportunity of being heard is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,64,241/-made by ld. Assessing Officer by disallowing the interest on housing loan from income house property.
4. That ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the correct facts of the case and giving proper opportunity of being heard and raising any query during the course of hearing is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the confirming the addition the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- on account of alleged difference in the receipts as per 26AS and return of income.
5. Assessee has every right to make, add, delete, modify, or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
(2) The Assessment Order U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act” for short) was passed on 31/12/2013, in which the following additions were made by the Assessing Officer (AO):
