METRO STONE CRUSHER PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWANI, HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 17(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 897/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issue without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to be heard, even though notices were issued but not complied with. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have given due opportunities to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against an order of the NFAC, Delhi. The assessee's grievance was that the CIT(A) decided the issue without affording an adequate opportunity of being heard, which violates principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sahil, CA
For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 21.07.2025
1.

The above captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against orders of the NFAC, Delhi dated 24.07.2023 for A.Y 2017-18.

2.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the main grievance of the assessee in the present appeals is that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue without affording adequate opportunity of Page 1 of 4 /DEL/2023 & 897/DEL/2024 Metro Stone Crusher Vs ITO [A.Ys 2016-17 & 2017-18] being heard to the assessee which is against the principles of natural justice. The assessee further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing appeals without sending the notice of hearing at the address given in the audit report where books of accounts were maintained.

4.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We find that the ld. CIT(A) in his order has stated that notices were issued however, they were not complied with. In these circumstances, we are, therefore, of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given due opportunities to the assessee of being heard.

6.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that the matter be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Page 2 of 4 /DEL/2023 & 897/DEL/2024 Metro Stone Crusher Vs ITO [A.Ys 2016-17 & 2017-18] assessee is also directed to provide necessary information /documents as required by the authorities.

7.

In the result, appeals of assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 21.07.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →