SUNSHINE INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 24(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 40/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 January 2023AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT despite notice, leading to an ex-parte decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, SR DR
Hearing: 03/01/2023Pronounced: 03/01/2023

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-8, New Delhi dated 03.12.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte.

4.

A perusal of the order of the first appellate authority show that the FAA has proceeded by following the observations made by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar 223 ITR 480. 5. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Though there is a mention of electronically communicated notice but whether that notice has been actually served upon the assessee is not clear. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore this appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Decision announced in the open court on 03.01.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →