What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) also did not adjudicate the issues independently on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee claimed he was not the proprietor of M/S. Apaar Enterprises, and that documents showed Ms. Anjul Aggarwal was the proprietor. The assessee also argued he was only an authorized signatory on the bank account, not the proprietor.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an order without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and without independently adjudicating the merits of the case.

Sanjeev Jindal, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Bhavnesh SainiDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 10.03.2021Pronounced: 26.04.2021

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi dated 25.02.2019.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the order passed by Assessing officer and CIT (A) are contrary to facts and law and record.

2. That the assessing officer completely erred in holding that it is appellant who is proprietor of M/S. Apaar Enterprises. There was no material on record which can even show or point out that appellant was in the proprietor or sole proprietor of M/S. Apaar Enterprises. Yet, Such perverse and baseless finding are returned. These facts are specifically brought to the notice of CIT(A) but have been completely ignored. There is no discussion at all on this vital aspect by CIT (A) but have been completely ignored.

2 Sanjeev Jindal There is no discussion at all on this vital aspect by CIT (A). Error is ex facie apparent. Appellant reiterates and reaffirms that he was never the proprietor / sole proprietor of M/S. Apaar Enterprises and as such cannot be fastened with any liability arising qua said firm.

That the appellant placed on record the documents issued by department of trade & taxes confirming that it is Ms. Anjul Aggarwal who is the proprietor / Sole proprietor of M/S. Apaar Enterprises and not appellant. Said document is above suspicious and was on record, but has been ignored. There are no discussions or reasoning assigned by any of the forum below for ignoring this documentary evidence.

4. That the assessing officer further erred in holding that appellant is shown to be proprietor of M/s Apaar Enterprises in bank account. Said finding are also contrary to records. Appellant is only shown to be the authorized signatory for bank account are not proprietor as claimed by assessing officer. Error is ex facie apparent. There was / is no material on record which can show or point out that appellant is shown to be the proprietor of M/S. Apaar enterprises in the bank account yet such perverse and baseless finding are returned. The fundamental difference between "authorized signatory" and "Proprietor" has been ignored. It ought to have been appreciated and examined before passing any order.

5. That the explanations and justifications given by appellant are completely ignored. Presuming though not admitting that appellant was not diligent in pursuing his appeal before CIT (A), yet it was incumbent upon appellate authority to at least examine the records before passing any order. But there was no such examination by CIT (A). Documents filed and forming part of record were completely ignored.”

3 Sanjeev Jindal 3. During the hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the order of the ld. CIT (A) dated 25.02.2019 has been passed without affording an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee filed an affidavit affirming that the notice has not been received by the assessee and the notices issued to the address of his Counsels JP & Co., Jitendra Kumar Goel have failed to appraise the assessee about the notice received and also defaulted in attending the hearing before the ld. CIT (A). It was pleaded that given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the revenue authorities.

We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT (A) has not adjudicated the issues independently on the merits of the case. Hence, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for adjudication de novo with directions to the assessee to comply diligently to the notices issued by the ld. CIT (A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/04/2021.

SANJEEV JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 41(3), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments