Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order that arose from an assessment under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, despite the assessee seeking adjournments and the final notice remaining unserved.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh determination on merits and law, after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order against the assessee without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, necessitating a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Assessment Year: 2011-12 Micro Land Developers Pvt Ltd., Vs ITO, Office No.322, 3rd Floor, Ward-16(4), SS Plaza, Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Mayfield Garden, Sector-47, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. PAN: AAFCM0432L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 04.11.2019 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi-6 (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’, for short) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-6/10443/2018-19 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 30.12.2018 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-16(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
On hearing both the sides, we find that amongst other grounds on merits, the assessee has raised a ground that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In this context, as we go through the impugned order, we find that judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr., 118 ITR 461, was relied and the assessee was proceeded ex parte.
Ld. CIT(A) mentions of certain notices being served but, the same indicate that the assessee was seeking adjournment through the AR and when the last notice was issued by speed post same was not returned served or unserved.