STEADFAST OFFICE AUTOMATION PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 24(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee did shift its registered office, leading to document misplacement, and claimed no email intimation was received. Therefore, the interest of justice would be served by remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return was assessed ex-parte due to additions on trade payable, office expenses, and sales promotion. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order after the assessee failed to attend multiple opportunities, citing misplacement of documents due to office shifting.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without granting an adjournment, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Steadfast Officer Automation Vs Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 437, 4th Floor, DLF Ward-24(2), Prime Tower, Phase-I, Okhla, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAMCS9289E Assessee by : Sh. Sameer Kapoor, CA Revenue by : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi dated 14.03.2019.
The return filed by the assessee on 30.03.2016 declaring a loss of Rs.32,109/- was taken up for assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and completed the assessment ex-parte making addition on account of trade payable shown in the balance sheet and office expenses, sales promotion, financial cost claimed in the P&L account. The ld. CIT (A) after giving four opportunities has passed an ex-parte order confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the ld. AR pleaded based on the affidavit filed by the assessee that the assessee could not attend before the Assessing Officer owing to 2 Steadfast Office Automation Pvt. Ltd. misplacement of relevant documents due to shifting of registered office. He further brought to our notice that only one notice was received by the assessee and an adjournment was sought before the ld. CIT (A). However, the ld. CIT (A) has passed an order declining the adjournment sought by the assessee. It was argued that given an opportunity, all the compliances would be made before the ld. CIT (A) without fail. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently opposed to the plea of the assessee and argued relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ashokji Chanduji Thakor R/Tax Appeal No. 1160 of 2018 that assessee who has failed to comply to the notices issued by the revenue authorities should not be allowed any further opportunities.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
We find that as per the Form No. INC-22 of MCA, it is a fact that the assessee has shifted his registered office address which led to misplacement of relevant documents. The assessee has also categorically submitted in the affidavit that no intimation has been received by the E-mail from the office of the ld. CIT (A). Hence, keeping in view, the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that interest of the justice would be well served if the cases remanded back to the file off the ld. CIT (A) for adjudication on merits afresh taking into consideration the submission of the assessee. We believe, the assessee would not misuse the trust reposed upon and comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT (A) promptly without taking any unnecessary adjournments.
3 Steadfast Office Automation Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/09/2019).
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026