SINGH AUTOMOBILES,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 461/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 December 2019AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was hearing cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal, but the tribunal proceeded to decide the appeals after hearing the Revenue's representative.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA & Sh. N.K. BILLAIYA

For Respondent: DR Assessment Year: 2013-14
Hearing: 18.12.2019Pronounced: 20.12.2019

आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This cross appeal filed by assessee and the Revenue is against order of CIT(A)-Aligarh, dated 30/10/2017 relating to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Despite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and because of issue involved, we proceed to decide both the appeals after hearing the Ld. DR for the Revenue.

3.

On perusal of the record, we find that the CIT(A) has passed the present order ex-parte qua the assessee without allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(A) has further upheld the certain additions made by the Assessing Officer and has deleted two additions made by the Assessing Officer. Both assessee and Revenue are in appeal against the respective order of the CIT(A).

4.

We find that the present appeals have been decided ex-parte qua the assessee and hence there is violation of principle of natural justice. In this circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) should allow reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

Accordingly, we set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits by a reasoned order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further the assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and participate in the appellate proceedings. The appeals are thus decided on this preliminary issue without going into the merits of the addition.

7.

Hence both appeals are restored back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A). The preliminary issue raised in these appeals is thus decided in favour of assessee. Since the appeals are being decided on the preliminary issue, we are not addressing the issue raised on merit.

8.

In the result, cross appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th day of December, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →