HARI KISHAN BABBAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-35(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2560/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 December 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard and did not decide the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) is required to adjudicate issues on merit and pass a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) without providing a proper opportunity to be heard or deciding the grounds on merit. The Revenue conceded that the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding the grounds on merit and without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG

For Appellant: Ms Kavita Saini, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.12.2022Pronounced: 12.12.2022

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.08.2022 of the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in limine applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). It was also submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the ld.CIT(A) ex parte qua the assessee without giving any final opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the grounds taken by the assessee on merit as per the requirement of section 250 (6) of the Act.

3.

The ld. Sr. DR, in all fairness, admitted that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine and, therefore, the Department has no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after allowing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

On careful consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), I am of the considered opinion that the assessee has not been provided due opportunity of being heard before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has also not decided the grounds of appeal on merits and, instead, dismissed the appeal in limine which the ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to do. The ld. CIT(A) is required to adjudicate the issues come before him on merit and pass a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Act. Since, in the instant case, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte without deciding the grounds taken by the assessee in Form No.35 on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal is CIT(A) at first appellate stage for adjudicating the matter afresh, after allowing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →