AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT (A)-8, Mumbai [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 26.04.2024 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as “Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 24.11.2019 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-50(1), Delhi under section 143(3) of the Act concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.
The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :
“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte and dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, irrespective of the allegation of non appearance of the appellant.
2.Because under Rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the jurisdiction of the appellate forum is determined with reference to the Assessing. Officer, and since the Assessing Officer is situated in Delhi, the entire appellate hierarchy vests in Delhi authorities alone, and not by ADDL/JCIT(A)- 8 Mumbai.
3.That the impugned appellate order is a non-speaking order, passed without dealing with the factual matrix, evidences, or legal submissions, and therefore deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming Assessing Officer disallowing professional charges amounting to ₹80,500 for indirect tax litigation, without appreciating that the said expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellant's activities and was allowable under the Income-tax Act, and that the disallowance is arbitrary, based on incorrect assumptions and without proper appreciation of facts and law. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in affirming Assessing Officer disallowing membership development expenses amounting to Rs.2,20,375, without considering the nature and purpose of the expenditure, which was enhancing the relationship with the AOP with its members and the disallowance having been made merely on surmises and conjectures without pointing out any defect in the genuineness of the expenditure, is unsustainable in law.
6.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground(s) of appeal at the time of hearing.”
There is a delay in filing the appeal. Having perused the condonation petition and the affidavit, we find that the reason for delay in filing the appeals is the AOP was engaged in Legal battle between the members of AOP. We therefore consider that the assessee has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society registered under the Society Registration Act and the members are from profession of security services. The society is functioning on the concept of mutuality. The assessee has filed return of income on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,65,280/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 24.11.2019 by determining the total income at Rs.10,66,155/- against income returned at Rs.7,65,280/- by making an addition of Rs.3,00,875/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who upheld the assessment order. Now the further aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us.
At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee could not comply with the notices by the CIT(A) which resulted in the CIT(A) passing an ex parte order. The learned AR prayed for remanding the case to the file of the CIT(A).
Per contra, learned DR did not raise any objection.
Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has not filed any submissions before the CIT(A) which led to passing an ex-parte order. We are however of the opinion that the CIT(A) has not examined the entire conspectus of the case and passed the order without following the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. In view of the same we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice and balance of convenience, the issue should be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for examining the issues and evidences afresh. We therefore, direct the ld. CIT(A) to give a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and examine and adjudicate on the impugned issues afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish all documents/evidence as and when required by the ld. CIT(A) for examination. Needless to add that in the event the assessee fails to avail the three effective opportunities provided, the CIT(A) would be free to take adverse view, if any. In view of the same, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 246/DEL/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.