Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC-1” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC-1” BENCH: NEW DELHI
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1503/Del/2020 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pragya Mudgal, vs ITO, Tower-B6, Flat No.-G-003, Ward-2(4), Noida. Gardenia Glory, Sector-46, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301. PAN-AMPPM6663A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms.Pragya Mudgal, Assessee Respondent by Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 23.07.2021
ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is
directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida dated 28.09.2018. The
assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
"That the Order is Void, Illegal, Arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice. 2. That no reasonable opportunity has been provided before deciding the case. 3. That the Notice dated 10109/2018 was issued to the Appellant. However, the request for adjournment of the case was not accepted. 4. That if the Appellant has not received or has not been served, the Tribunal may restore the matter and at least a chance of hearing should be provided as held in case of Meghji Kanji Patel Vis Kundanmal Chamanlal AIR 1968 Bom. 387 the honorable
ITA No. 1503/Del/2020
Bombay High Court held that if where an affidavit is filed the same has to be accepted. 5. That the Appellant has paid the Appellant Authority the fees as prescribed as she was interested in perusing the case. 6. Since no reasonable opportunity of being heard has been provided to the Appellant, it cannot be said that the facts of the case have been duly examined. It has been clearly held in case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. Vis Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on 2Uh August 1999 that the order has to be passed U/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after considering all the facts of the case clearly. 7. That the Appellant reserves the right to take any other ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the
assessee was re-opened for assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and the assessment was framed vide order dated
31.10.2017. The Assessing Officer had computed the total income of the
assessee at Rs.2,52,560/-. The assessment was passed ex-parte to the
assessee.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A)
who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal
cannot be admitted without payment of necessary fee in terms of provision
of section 249(1)(a) of the Act.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred present appeal before
this Tribunal.
2 | P a g e
ITA No. 1503/Del/2020
The assessee appeared in person and submitted that the necessary
fee was duly deposited. The assessee also undertook to furnish the
requisite details before Ld. CIT(A), if the matter is remanded to Ld. CIT(A)
for decision afresh.
In the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and
supported the order of the authorities below.
I have heard contentions of both the parties and perused the
material available on record. Considering the submissions of the assessee
that necessary fee was deposited, I therefore, deem it proper to set aside
the impugned order in the interest of principles of natural justice and
restore the grounds of appeal to Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh. The assessee
is hereby directed not to seek adjournment before Ld. CIT(A) except
otherwise prevented by extreme exigencies. Thus, grounds raised by the
assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in
the presence of both the parties on 23rd July, 2021.
Sd/-
(KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER
*Amit Kumar*
3 | P a g e
ITA No. 1503/Del/2020