What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. The ITAT also noted that the AO had accepted the assessee's contention in a subsequent assessment year.

The assessee sought stay against an outstanding demand. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and no notice was served. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) order did not record proof of service of notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of notices on the assessee. Whether the addition made by the AO on account of cost of improvement was justified.

Chander Prakash Gupta, New Delhi vs ACIT | ITAT Delhi 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “FRIDAY” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI R.K. PANDA

Hearing: 07.02.2020Pronounced: 07.02.2020

2 ITA.No.613/Del./2020 & SA.No.89/Del./2020 Shri Chander Prakash Gupta, New Delhi.

The assessee has filed the above stay application seeking stay against the outstanding demand of Rs.22,65,860/- for the A.Y. 2011-2012. When the stay application was heard, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte without serving any notice upon the assessee. With the consent of both the parties, we dispose of the appeal along with the stay application.

ITA.No.613/Del./2020 :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi, Dated 30.09.2019, for the A.Y. 2011-2012.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted three dates of hearing in the impugned order, on which date the assessee was intimated all the dates of hearing of the appeal i.e., through speed post as well as through e-mail. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that assessee has not received any notice. The impugned order also shows that the Ld. CIT(A) nowhere recorded if these notices have been served upon

3 ITA.No.613/Del./2020 & SA.No.89/Del./2020 Shri Chander Prakash Gupta, New Delhi. the assessee. It would show that principles of natural justice has been violated in the matter. Further, the A.O. has made addition on account of cost of improvement which Resulted into the ground taken against the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in the year 2012-2013 the contention of assessee has been accepted by the A.O. in the Order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 02.03.2015. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the A.O. The assessee shall not make unnecessary request for adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall be cooperative with him. Appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The stay application of the assessee have become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed.

4 ITA.No.613/Del./2020 & SA.No.89/Del./2020 Shri Chander Prakash Gupta, New Delhi. 6. To sum-up, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes and stay application of the assessee dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

CHANDER PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-53(1), NEW DELHI

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