ITO WARD - 1(1), GHAZIABAD vs. ANG INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSULTANTS PVT LTD, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the first appellate order was passed ex-parte without proper service of notice and without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) to pass an ex-parte order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-submission of demand notice and challan fee.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) had jurisdiction to pass an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice and affording an effective opportunity of hearing 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 BENCH “A” DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 29.09.2018 arising from the assessment order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16. 2. As per its grounds of appeal
, the assessee has inter alia challenged the jurisdiction of the CIT(A), Noida to pass the first appellate order.
3. On perusal of the first appellate order, it is noticed that the first appellate order has been passed ex-parte.
4. It is not discernible as to whether the notice sent for hearing was actually served upon the assessee or not. The CIT(A) has declined to admit the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the same in limine on the ground that copy of demand notice and challan fee for admission of appeal is not available on record. 3. On perusal of the record, it is difficult to ascertain the relevant facts from the cryptic order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has not given a finding that notice of hearing was actually served upon the assessee. In fact, at one place, it was mentioned that notice sent by the CIT(A) was returned by the postal authorities concerned on the ground that address of service is incomplete. Thus, it appears that the first appellate order has been passed without giving any effective opportunity to the assessee. It is noticed that the assessee has also challenged the correctness of the jurisdiction assumed by the first appellate authority while passing the ex-parte order. 4. Under the circumstances and the totality of the facts available, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and revive the first appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of being heard by the competent first appellate authority.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/11/2022.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026