Omway Buildestate Private Limited vs. JCIT Range-76: Appeal Against Addition for Assessment Year 2013-14

Omway Buildestate Private Limited vs. JCIT Range-76: Appeal Against Additions for Assessment Year 2013-14

In the case of Omway Buildestate Private Limited, Delhi versus JCIT Range-76, New Delhi, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi Bench ‘G’ presided over an appeal concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant, Omway Buildestate Private Limited, contested the additions made by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) Range-76, New Delhi. The case was registered as ITA No. 6447/DEL/2019 and was filed on 2019-08-01. The final tribunal order, which favored the appellant, was pronounced on 26th April 2022.

Background of the Case

Omway Buildestate Private Limited, a company engaged in the real estate business, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. During the assessment proceedings, the JCIT Range-76 made certain additions to the income of the company, which the appellant deemed unjustified. The specific details of the additions were not disclosed in the Tribunal’s order, but the appellant challenged these additions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], New Delhi.

However, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal filed by Omway Buildestate Private Limited without considering the merits of the case. The CIT(A)’s decision was based on the non-appearance of the appellant during the proceedings. The appellant claimed that they had submitted a detailed written submission along with all relevant documents, but these were not considered by the CIT(A). Aggrieved by the ex-parte order of the CIT(A), Omway Buildestate Private Limited appealed to the ITAT, seeking a fresh adjudication on the merits of their case.

Proceedings Before the ITAT

The case was heard by a bench comprising Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member, and Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member. During the proceedings, the counsel for Omway Buildestate Private Limited argued that the CIT(A) had erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving due consideration to the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant’s counsel emphasized that the CIT(A) had not properly served the notices, which led to the appellant’s non-appearance.

The appellant’s representative requested the ITAT to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the appellant an opportunity to present their case on merits. The counsel assured the Tribunal that the appellant would cooperate fully with the lower authorities and furnish all the necessary details required for the adjudication.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the CIT(A), arguing that the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal due to the appellant’s non-compliance with the proceedings. However, the DR acknowledged that the CIT(A) had not disposed of the appeal on merits.

Tribunal’s Findings and Judgment

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, the ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order without addressing the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the mandate of Sub-Section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and provide reasons for their conclusions. The ITAT noted that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issues on merits, the CIT(A) had failed to comply with the statutory requirements and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal further observed that it is a well-settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing must be provided to the parties involved, and no party should be condemned unheard. In light of these observations, the ITAT set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a fair hearing to the appellant and to consider the merits of the case before passing a fresh order.

Conclusion

In its final judgment, the ITAT allowed the appeal filed by Omway Buildestate Private Limited for statistical purposes, remanding the case to the CIT(A) with clear instructions to re-examine the issues after granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant to present their case. The Tribunal’s decision underscores the importance of due process and fair hearing in tax adjudications, ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to be heard before a final decision is made.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that procedural fairness plays in the adjudication of tax disputes. The Tribunal’s intervention ensured that the appellant’s case would be reconsidered on its merits, providing an opportunity for a just resolution.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26th April 2022

Signed by:
Judicial Member: Shri Kul Bharat
Accountant Member: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi

Date of Pronouncement: 26th April 2022

Omway Buildestate Private Limited vs. JCIT Range-76: Appeal Against Addition for Assessment Year 2013-14