AJAY CHHAGANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3687/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 February 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to consider all documentary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15. The assessee did not appear for the hearing before the ITAT, nor did they file an adjournment application. The revenue's representative appeared and relied on the lower authorities' orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-1], Gurgaon dated 16.03.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law is not considering the actual facts of health issues of an assessee and dismissed the appeal.

2. AO has erred in law is not considering the actual facts of exempt part of income received under the head income from salary.

3. AO has erred in law is not allowing the assessee to claim the benefits under HRA, academic allowance, daily allowance, helper allowance, medical and others.

4. AO has erred in adding back of income of INR 10,16,373/- and not accepting the details provided by an assessee.

5. AO has erred in facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© against the arbitrary, illegal and adhoc additions made in respect add back in income.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

4.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the revenue authorities especially the exparte impugned order, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is exparte and non-speaking order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also consider all the documentary evidences filed by the assessee, if any. 5.1 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and non-cooperation of the assessee before the revenue authorities, I am directing the Assessee to appear personally or through his Authorised Representative before the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.04.2020 at 10.00 AM for hearing.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →