DEPENDABLE TRANSPORT P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1046/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 October 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked the statutory requirements of setting out points for determination, decisions, and reasons. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for non-representation. The assessee claimed to have filed an adjournment letter electronically, which may have gone unnoticed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 250(6) of the Act when passing an ex-parte order. Whether the assessee was provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

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, ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

Hearing: 19.10.2022Pronounced: 21.10.2022

ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM,

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 13.01.2020 of CIT(A)-3, New Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year is assailed. At the time of hearing, an adjournment was moved on behalf of the assessee. Considering the fact that the impugned order is ex-parte order, it was passed over.

2.

In the next round, the Ld. AR was required to address why the assessee remained unpresented before the Ld. CIT(A) on the specific date.

Attention of the Ld. AR was invited to the following ground raised in the appeal.

“1. That the order dated 13.01.2020 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-03, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified in passing the order and dismissing the appeal without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant Company on the ground that, allegedly, it has not availed the opportunities provided to it and in particular holding that there was no compliance on 07.01.2020 whereas the fact of the matter is that a letter seeking adjournment was duly filed electronically.”

3.

Mr. Lakshya Budhiraja, C.A. appearing on behalf of the assessee, stated his inability to address this fact and instead requested for adjournment. The said request was rejected, the reasons for rejection of the adjournment request are set-out hereinafter.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →