Case Number: ITA 458/DEL/2019
Appellant: Sharpline Network P. Ltd, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Case Filed On: 2019-01-23
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2019-07-08
Pronounced On: 2019-07-08
The case of Sharpline Network P. Ltd vs ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi, pertains to the assessment year 2015-16. The appellant, Sharpline Network P. Ltd, filed an appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs.52,06,560/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of agricultural income.
Sharpline Network P. Ltd, based in New Delhi, filed its return of income on 25.09.2015, declaring nil income. The company is engaged in the business of setting up TV channels and networks. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of agricultural income shown by the assessee and treated it as “income from other sources”. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition due to the non-appearance of the appellant despite multiple opportunities granted for representation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ‘SMC’ heard the case on 02.07.2019. The appellant was represented by Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA, while the respondent was represented by Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a speaking order, merely due to non-prosecution by the appellant.
The ITAT decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to explain the case. However, the CIT(A) was also instructed to decide the appeal on merit even if the appellant fails to appear again. The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, providing the appellant with another chance to present their case.
The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for tax authorities to pass speaking orders addressing the substantive issues of the case. The decision to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing ensures that the appellant’s claims are adequately examined, upholding the principles of natural justice.
In summary, the appeal filed by Sharpline Network P. Ltd for the assessment year 2015-16 was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The ITAT emphasized the need for a speaking order and provided the appellant with another opportunity to present their case. The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit, even if the appellant does not appear again.
The final judgment is as follows:
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.458/Del/2019
Assessment Year: 2015-16
M/s. Sharpline Network Pvt. Ltd.
38, Rashtriya Tower Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan, Delhi-110055
PAN: AAFCS0526B
Vs
Income Tax Officer
Ward – 23 (1)
New Delhi
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA
Respondent by Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Date of hearing: 02/07/2019
Date of Pronouncement: 08/07/2019
ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.10.2018 of the CIT(A)-8, New Delhi relating to A.Y. 2015-16.
2. The assessee in its various grounds has challenged the exparte order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.52,06,560/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of agricultural income.
3. After hearing both the sides I find the assessee is a company engaged in the business of setting up TV channels and network. It filed its return of income on 25.09.2015 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s. 143 (3) rejected the claim of agricultural income shown by the assessee and treated the same as “income from other sources”. Since none appeared before the CIT(A) despite opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to non prosecution.
4. In my opinion the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for non prosecution and he has to pass a speaking order deciding the issue before him. I, therefore, deem it proper to restore the issue to his file with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to explain his case failing which he is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. However, he has to decide the appeal on merit even if the assessee does not appear. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also undertook to appear before the CIT(A) and explain the case. I, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2019.
Sd/-
(R.K PANDA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
*Neha*
Date:- 08.07.2019
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI
Date of dictation 02.07.2019
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 03.07.2019
Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS /PS
Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement
Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS
Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 08.07.2019
Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk
Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order
Date of dispatch of the Order
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform