What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the issues in dispute to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving adequate opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2008-09. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in issuing a notice u/s 143(2) when no return was filed and that the appeal was dismissed on non-payment of tax, which was not a valid ground. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) did not deal with the grounds raised in a previous Tribunal order.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice u/s 143(2) can be issued when no return is filed, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds not properly considered or without sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

Jayveer, Noida vs ITO | s.143(2) | ITAT Delhi 2020

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjai, Advocate

This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-I], Noida dated 28.2.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:-

1. Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facst as well as in law in holding that notice u/s. 143(2) could be issued where o return is filed by assessee. This is against provision of the 143(2) itself.

2. Scope of deciding the appeal was limited because the matter was set aside by Hon’ble Tribunal. In such cases CIT(A) has to give decision only on the grounds involved and raised before Tribunal. He is not empowered to deliberate on new ground whereas Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on non-payment of tax.

Non- payment of notional advance tax where no return is filed even though there is no such provision in the Act and taxation statute is to be constructed strictly. Secondly CIT(A) discussion of serving notice u/s. 143(2) even through no returns was filed is legally incorrect ad irrelevant. 3. Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts as well as in law in not dealing, deliberating and deciding grounds raised in Tribunal order dated 13.12.2017.

It is therefore prayed that appeal may kindly be allowed with cost, dismissal of appeal being against law.

At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being herd to the assessee. 4.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 29.04.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court. 5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 19.02.2020. Sd/-

JAYVEER,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), NOIDA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments