Sumeet Saluja vs ITO Ward 33(2), New Delhi: Appeal Allowed for Statistical Purposes for AY 2014-15

Case Overview: Sumeet Saluja vs ITO Ward 33(2), New Delhi

Case Number: ITA 6235/DEL/2019

Appellant: Sumeet Saluja, New Delhi

Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-33(2), New Delhi

Assessment Year: 2014-15

Case Filed On: 2019-07-23

Order Type: Final Tribunal Order

Date of Order: 2023-06-12

Pronounced On: 2023-06-12

Introduction

The case of Sumeet Saluja vs ITO Ward 33(2), New Delhi concerns the assessment year 2014-15. The appellant, Sumeet Saluja, challenged an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring it to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication after the appeal was initially dismissed due to non-prosecution.

Background of the Case

Sumeet Saluja, a resident of New Delhi, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi, dated 23.01.2017, which arose from the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The AO had made an addition of Rs.55,24,218/- under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which was challenged by the appellant.

When the appeal was called for hearing before the ITAT, the appellant did not appear, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution by the appellant, invoking the principle that law assists those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who are careless.

Key Issues Raised

The primary issue in this appeal was the CIT(A)’s decision to dismiss the appeal without addressing the merits of the case, due to the non-appearance of the appellant. The ITAT had to determine whether this dismissal was justified under the law.

Tribunal’s Findings and Decision

The ITAT reviewed the order of the CIT(A) and observed that the dismissal was made in a very cryptic manner, without addressing the issues on their merits. The Tribunal referred to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that the CIT(A) must state the points for determination and provide reasons for the decision, even in cases of ex-parte proceedings.

The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal solely on the grounds of non-prosecution, without addressing the issues raised. This view is supported by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.), which clarified that the CIT(A) must adjudicate on the merits of the appeal, irrespective of the appellant’s presence.

Conclusion and Order

In light of these observations, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without addressing the substantive issues. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits, ensuring that the appellant is given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The ITAT instructed the appellant to fully cooperate with the CIT(A) during the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) could proceed according to the law.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remanded back to the CIT(A) for a thorough and fair hearing.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12th June, 2023.

Judicial Member: Chandra Mohan Garg

Accountant Member: Pradip Kumar Kedia

Sumeet Saluja vs ITO Ward 33(2), New Delhi: Appeal Allowed for Statistical Purposes for AY 2014-15