Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee's appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed the appeal and rejected an adjournment application. The original assessment order disallowed a sum of Rs. 10,90,28,848/-.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without considering or rejecting the adjournment application and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The order of CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting an adjournment or hearing the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
(A.Y. 2017-18) M/s Seventy Townfit Homes Vs. ACIT Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Circle 9(1) Ferrous Township Pvt. Ltd.) A- C. R. Building, 9, 2nd floor, K. H. No. 371, Near Delhi Shivmurti, Rangpuri, Mahipalpur, South West Delhi PAN: ACQFS1603K Appellant Respondent Assessee by CA Rajkumar and Advocate Suraj Gupta Revenue by Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘PCIT’ for short) dated 23/04/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 17/12/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by disallowing a sum of Rs. 10,90,28,848/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 17/12/2019, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23/04/2024 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal has rejected the adjournment application, thereby violated the principals of natural justice, thus sought for restoring the Appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Per contra the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the sufficient opportunity has been provided to the Assessee, however, due to non co-operation of the Assessee, the impugned order came to be passed, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The order impugned of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed not even rejecting the application filed by the Assessee for adjournment. While passing the order impugned, the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned regarding the service of the notice to the Assessee or the application for adjournment filed by the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass the order impugned without giving opportunity to the Assessee of being heard. Further, as could be seen that the Assessee has filed application for adjournment (which is produced by the Assessee at Page No. 1 of the Paper book) and the said application for adjournment was neither rejected nor considered by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal de-novo after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.