VIJENDRA SURENDRA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine without granting an opportunity to rectify defects. The CIT(A)'s order contained contradictory statements regarding the documents filed by the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without providing an opportunity to the assessee to remove defects and by violating principles of natural justice.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
Date of hearing 29.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 14.07.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 17.12.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, for the assessment year 2007-08.
We have heard Sh. Mayank Patawari, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Ms. Indu Sen, learned Departmental Representative.
The primary grievance of the assesse is against ex-parte disposal of its appeal, that too, in limine by learned Commissioner (Appeals). On perusal of impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine, alleging that the assessee had not filed any documents such as Form 35, assessment order, grounds of appeal, demand notice etc. The aforesaid finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is contradictory considering the fact that in the opening paragraph of the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the information given by the assessee in From no. 35 regarding the date of service of demand notice and payment of admitted tax is taken to be correct.
In any case of the matter, if assessee’s appeal was defective, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have granted a fair opportunity to the assessee to remove the defect and thereafter should have decided the appeal. Prima facie, it appears that no such opportunity was granted to the assessee by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal was decided ex-parte.
Thus, in our view, while deciding the appeal learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed the principles of rules of Natural Justice. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to him for de novo adjudication. In case, there is any defect in the appeal filed by the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) must call upon the assessee to remove the defect and thereafter decide the appeal on merits after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th July, 2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
