VIKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-63(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1786/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2020AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issues ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was cancelled and the issues were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of Rs. 6,30,003/- on account of sundry creditors by invoking Section 41(1).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the addition on account of sundry creditors was justified under Section 41(1) without remission or cessation of liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-38, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2013-14 on the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law having been passed exparte without giving the assessee an appropriate and adequate opportunity of being heard in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,30,003/- on account of sundry creditors of the assessee, M/s Mahavir Overseas by invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the Act. (ii) That the above addition has been confirmed ignoring the fact that there was no remission or cessation of liability and the assessee and the assessee is still bound to pay the required amount to its sundry creditor, M/s Mahavir Overseas.

(iii) That the above addition has been confirmed by rejecting the evidences and explanation brought on record by the assessee.

2.

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee stated that the learned First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte without providing opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue in dispute against the assessee. He requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving full opportunity to the assessee for substantiating his case.

3.

On the contrary, learned DR has not raised any serious objection on the request of learned counsel for the assessee.

4.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record and find that learned First Appellate Authority has decided the issues ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the interest of justice, I am cancelling the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the issues in dispute to decide the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions after giving full opportunity to the assessee for substantiating his claim.

5.

Keeping in view, the non cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the learned First Appellate Authority on 17.03.2020 for hearing. There is no need to issue notice. The date of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) as this has already been pronounced in the open court.

6.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 06/01/2020.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →