SMT. LEELA RANI,ROPAR vs. ITO, W-2(2), ROPAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1509/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 June 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure full participation in the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay, which was condoned due to timely fee deposit and lack of objection from the revenue. The assessee claimed they did not receive notices from the CIT(A) and sought an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and if the ex-parte order should be set aside.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA
Hearing: 16.06.2020Pronounced: 17.06.2020

ORDER आदेश आदेश PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 08.08.2019 of CIT(A)-1 Chandigarh pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year is assailed on the grounds of lack of adequate opportunity of being heard addressed by ground Nos. 4&5 in the present appeal.

2.

Howeve r, before addressing the same, ld. AR was required to advance his arguments in regard to the delay of three days pointed out by the Registry. The ld. AR referring to the condonation of delay application dated 13.02.2020 in response to the Registry’s notice submitted that the assessee had to travel

1.

ITA 1509 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 2 of 3 from Ropar to Chandigarh and on account of her illness, could not come earlier for the purpose of signing etc. of the appeal.

However, it was his submission that the Challan Fee was deposited well within time and it was not delayed and is evidenced from the copy of the Challan filed before the Registry.

Accordingly, it was his prayer that the delay may be condoned.

3.

Considering the evidences which shows that the payment was deposited on 22.11.2019 i.e. well within the limitation and after considering that ld. Sr.DR who had no objection to the condonation of delay, the delay is condoned. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself

4.

Inviting attention to the impugned order page 3, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not receive any of the notices, however, it was his submission that the address is a correct address. Giving his oral undertaking that the assessee shall participate in the proceedings in the eventuality a remand is made , prayer for an opportunity of being heard was made. It was his prayer that the appeal may be remanded to the CIT(A) in order to allow the assessee an opportunity to address the addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- and Rs. 7,616/- made in the assessment order.

5.

The ld. Sr.DR initially posing an objection to the assessee's lack of participation guided by the fact that the ld. AR has given

ITA 1509 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 3 of 3 his oral undertaking to keep the concerned office informed of the assessee's address, ultimately agreed to the remand back to the CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the light of the submissions of the parties before the Bench, the ex-parte order passed is set aside directing the assessee to ensure full and proper participation before the said authority and not to abuse the trust reposed. It is made clear that the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe d for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17 th June,2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →