SURESH KUMAR,KAITHAL vs. ITO WARD - 2, KAITHAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 878/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 October 2022AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed to be a farmer who received earnest money for land sales, which were later cancelled and the money returned. The Assessing Officer assessed total income at Rs. 1,40,55,394/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case, and whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 20.11.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

Grounds of appeal read as under:

“A) Because the appellant is a farmer and he had entered into agreements with different persons to sell his lands in the Assessment Year 2010-11. Appellant received the disputed amount as earned money in respect of sale of the lands. However, the said agreements were later on cancelled in the same Assessment Year, i.e., 2010-11 and the appellant had to return the whole amount that he had received as earnest money.

B) Because the amount that has been returned by the appellant cannot be, by any reasonable stretch of imagination, deemed to be his income for the purpose of assessment to tax.

C) Because the appellant was not served with any notice which could have informed him about the date of hearing, which had been fixed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal. Therefore, depriving him of any opportunity to put forth his submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals).

D) Because the order dated 20.11.2018 has been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is a trite proposition of law that imposition of tax cannot be made without assigning reasons and without assigning any opportunity of being heard to the party which is adversely affected by such assessment.

E) Because the address of the Appellant, mentioned in the order dated is wrong, which resulted in non-service of notice to the appellant thereby denying him the opportunity to put forth his submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals).

F) That the income disclosed by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2010-11 is bona fide and nothing has been concealed by him.

G) Because the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed an order without any application of mind.

It is evident that submissions and evidence placed before the Ld. CIT(A) were not considered in detail. The appeal was dismissed summarily by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) without providing any opportunity to the Appellant of being heard before the order was passed by it.”

3.

At the outset, we note that in this case the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,40,55,394/- as against the return of income at Rs.1,05,100/-. Upon assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. We note that under Section 251 of the IT Act, the ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for non prosecution. It is incumbent upon him to pass speaking order on the merits of the case. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes ex-parte.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/10/2022.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →