SHRI BHAGWAN,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD-3, REWARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2603/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 December 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) failed to decide the grounds of appeal on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear before the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex parte orders. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the grounds on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal in limine without deciding the grounds on merit and whether the assessee was provided with a due opportunity of being heard.

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 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 04.03.2019 of the CIT(A), Rohtak, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. However, we find this matter could be disposed of even in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate this appeal after hearing the ld. Sr. DR.

3.

On perusal of the record, I find that in this case, the ld. AO has passed the assessment order ex parte in view of non-appearance by the assessee’s representative. The ld. CIT(A) has also 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). I also find 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.

4.

The ld. Sr. DR, in all fairness, admitted that the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A) have passed ex parte orders and 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 AO for de novo assessment , after allowing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

1.

5. On careful consideration of the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR and on perusal of the orders of the AO and the ld.CIT(A), I am of the considered opinion that the assessee has not been provided due opportunity of being

AO as well as by 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 AO has framed the assessment ex parte as also 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 restored to the file of the AO for framing the assessment de novo, 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 →