The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 17,16,000/- on account of bank deposits. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing a sufficient opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Dhan Pati vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2019

Q: What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

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

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2015-16 on the following grounds:-

On the facts and in the 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 the facts.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,16,000/- made by the AO on account of bank deposits.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above said addition despite the assessee bringing on record explanation and evidences to prove the source of the same.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that learned First Appellate Authority passed the impugned order exparte without giving the sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. She requested that the issues in dispute be set aside to the learned First Appellate Authority to decide the same fresh as per law and after giving opportunity to the assessee.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the Revenue authorities.

I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities specially the impugned order and appeal of the view that learned First Appellate Authority has passed impugned order exparte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the learned First Appellate Authority to decide the same fresh as per law after giving fully opportunity to the parties.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17/12/2019.

DHAN PATI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-37 (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