NAVEEN KUMAR JAIN (L/H OF SH. ANAND PRAKASH JAIN),DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 63(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7054/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 February 2021AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appellate order lacked specific points for determination and reasons for decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 36,17,208/- on account of purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for default as the assessee did not appear for hearings despite seeking adjournments.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal for default. Whether the CIT(A)'s order complied with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the IT Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 03.02.2021Pronounced: 03.02.2021

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi, Dated 26.07.2019, for the A.Y. 2007-2008.

2 ITA.No.7054/Del./2019 Shri Naveen Kumar Jain, L/H of Shri Anand Prakash Jain, Delhi. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the findings of the authorities below.

3. In this case the A.O. passed the re-assessment order under section 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 25.03.2015 making addition of Rs.36,17,208/- on account of purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee for hearing of the appeal, but, the assessee despite seeking adjournment did not avail the opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal of assessee for default.

4. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires re-consideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and that assessee should not suffer on account of non-appearance of the Counsel. The Ld. CIT(A) though referred to certain dates of hearing in the appellate order, but, ultimately dismissed the appeal of assessee for default on the part of the assessee.

3 ITA.No.7054/Del./2019 Shri Naveen Kumar Jain, L/H of Shri Anand Prakash Jain, Delhi. According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. However, the present impugned order shows that appeal of assessee has been mainly dismissed for default on the part of assessee, without deciding the appeal on merits, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in Law.

3.

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee in accordance with law, by giving reasons for decision in the appellate order and by giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.

4 ITA.No.7054/Del./2019 Shri Naveen Kumar Jain, L/H of Shri Anand Prakash Jain, Delhi. Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →