APEX HEART CARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 3(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7096/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 April 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by dismissing appeals without deciding on merits and also violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed against orders passed by the appellate authority for various assessment years. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without deciding the issues on merits, despite detailed submissions. The Revenue supported the CIT(A)'s orders, stating there was no appearance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without deciding the appeals on merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI KUL BHARAT

Consolidated Appeals (8)

ITA 6441/Del/2019AY 2016-17
ITA 6447/Del/2019AY 2013-14
ITA 7096/Del/2019AY 2015-16
ITA 7325/Del/2019AY 2014-15
ITA 9608/Del/2019AY 2015-16
ITA 9863/Del/2019AY 2011-12
ITA 1875/Del/2021AY 2013-14
ITA 472/Del/2022AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Alok, Shri Umesh, Adv. D.R
Hearing: 26.04.2022Pronounced: 26.04.2022

The present appeals are filed by the above mentioned assesses feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by appellate authority for various assessment years mentioned hereinabove.

2.

Since the issue in all the appeals are common, therefore we clubbed all of them together for the sake of brevity and convenience. However, we are taking as a lead case wherein assessee has raised the following grounds:

1. “That the order of the Ld CIT(A) is against law and facts.

2. That the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,92,612/- without considering the submission of the appellant, although the appellant had submitted a detailed written submission before the Ld. CIT(A) along with all the relevant documents. 3. That the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,92,612/- made by the Ld. AO by making disallowance out of depreciation claimed.

3 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issue on merits although assessee had submitted a detailed written submission before the Ld. CIT(A) along with all the relevant documents. He therefore submitted that in the interest of justice one more opportunity be given to the assessee to submit the necessary details and he further assured that assessee will Co- operate by furnishing all the required details.

5. Before us, Learned DR fairly submitted that CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeals of the assessee on merits but however submitted that since there was no appearance by assessee before CIT(A), CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee. He thus supported the order of CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before us, it is the contention of the Learned AR that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the assessee and therefore assessee could not comply with the directions. The perusal of CIT(A) orders reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeals without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned orders of CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re- adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →