MARC INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. CIT (APPEALS)-29, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5511/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have heard the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The reasoning was that even though the assessee failed to appear, the appellate authority has a duty to ensure that an appeal is decided on merits after affording a proper hearing. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The operative direction was to remand the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was sent back for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Marc India Ltd, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,40,87,010. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making an addition of Rs. 4,15,650. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 29 (CIT(A)), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee is now in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the CIT(A). The ITAT noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, and the appeal was disposed of on merits. The assessee also remained unrepresented before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite the assessee's failure to appear before the lower appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, though unrepresented before the ITAT, implicitly argued that the CIT(A) should have afforded them a proper hearing before dismissing the appeal. The ITAT's decision to restore the issue suggests a recognition of potential procedural deficiency. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. Sr. DR argued that numerous opportunities were provided to the assessee, and the appeal was disposed of on merit. The revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s order was justified given the assessee's non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR

Hearing: 26/05/2025

Date of hearing: 26/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26 /05/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.09.2024 of the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) -29 [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A))”] passing against the assessment order vide order dated 24.09.2022 for the assessment year 2020-21 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,40,87,010/- on 30-11-2021. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 22-02-2022 and duly served upon the assessee through ITBA Portal. In the compliance of the notice the Ld. AR of the assessee has attended the proceedings. The AO completed the assessment by making the addition of Rs 4,15,650/-of the Act. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 30-9-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

Ld. Sr. DR submitted that numerous opportunities were provide to the assessee but he did not attend the proceedings and the appeal was disposed of on merit. None is present for the assessee. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) should have heard the appeal on merit after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the interest of the justice and fair play we retore the issue of the file before the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) New Delhi. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26 .05.2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →