AIMS SANYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the procedure followed by the CIT(A) was unclear regarding post-January 2016 notices. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to ensure a fair hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte due to non-attendance. The assessee contended that principles of natural justice were denied as proper notices for hearing were not provided.
What were the issues?
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the CIT(A) in deciding the appeal ex-parte without proper notice to the assessee.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI R.K. PANDA
ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi, Dated 01.06.2016, for the A.Y. 2011-2012, challenging the addition of Rs.1,71,45,776/- on account of proportionate interest leading to reduction in work-in-progress by the said amount.
2 ITA.No.4412/Del./2016 M/s. Aims Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that notice was issued on 02.12.2015 for 14.12.2015 which was adjourned to 28.12.2015. Notice was issued on 28.12.2015 for 11.01.2016. Lastly, notice was issued on 03.05.2015 and no date of hearing has been mentioned. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that none attended on that day, therefore, appeal was decided in the absence of assessee. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The assessee in the grounds of appeal challenged the addition as well as submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order denying the principles of natural justice.
We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned order shows that on 03.05.2015 notice was issued, but, no date is mentioned. Thereafter, on two dates the appeal was adjourned and last adjournment was for 11.01.2016. The impugned order is passed on 01.06.2016. What has happened from January, 2016 to June, 2016 is not clear from the impugned order and whether any notice of hearing have been issued to the assessee thereafter is also not clear. If the Ld. CIT(A) wanted
3 ITA.No.4412/Del./2016 M/s. Aims Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. to proceed ex-parte, he could have proceeded ex-parte in January, 2016 itself. However, the appeal was kept pending for passing the Order till 01.06.2016. Thus, the assessee rightly stated that principles of natural justice have been denied in the matter. Since nothing is clear whether any notice have been issued after 11.01.2016 to the assessee for hearing of the appeal, we are of the view that matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we 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 on merits, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the A.O. Appeal of assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
