What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the absence of the Departmental Representative and the assessee's prior absence before the CIT(A), decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. This was conditional on a deposit of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The assessee's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s confirmation of an addition of Rs. 41,59,405/- due to a discrepancy between the income tax return and Form 26AS. The assessee was absent before the CIT(A), leading to an ex parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal ex parte without considering the merits, and if the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case.

Ms. Simran Hoon, New Delhi vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Jain, CA

Hearing: 05/11/2019

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) –I, Noida {CIT (A) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal challenges the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in which he has confirmed addition of Rs. 41,59,405/- on account of discrepancy between the income shown as per the income tax return and the receipts as per Form 26AS ex parte qua the assessee.

None was present on behalf of the department when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, an application has been received on behalf of the Senior Departmental Representative Shri S.N. Meena in which he has sought adjournment. We note with displeasure that the Ld. Sr. DR has not found time to be present before this court and has sought adjournment through an application without specifying the reason for his absence. The Ld. CIT (DR) Shri S.K. Jain expressed his lack of knowledge about the whereabouts of Ld. Sr. DR. Therefore, taking a strong exception to the absence of the Ld. Sr. DR before this court, we proceed to hear the appeal of the assessee ex parte qua the department.

A perusal of the order of the Ld. First appellate authority shows that the assessee was not present before the Ld. CIT (A) during the first appellate proceedings and the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, it is our considered opinion that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT (A). However, this opportunity is being given subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund on or before 30th November, 2019. The assessee is further directed to be represented before the Ld. First Appellate Authority on or before 6th February, 2020 along with proof of depositing Rs. 5,000/- towards the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and also a copy of this order. The Ld. CIT (A) shall grant adequate opportunity to the assessee to present her case and thereafter pass the order in accordance with law.

In the final result the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

MS. SIMRAN HOON,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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