What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-appearance, which was attributed to the critical illness and subsequent death of his mother. The assessee had returned an income of Rs. 10,70,110/-, but the AO made additions leading to a taxable income of Rs. 14,13,106/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable personal circumstances, and if so, whether the order should be set aside.

Baljhinder Singh vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2019

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

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH

For Appellant: Ms. Renu Gupta Office Employee

Hearing: 13.06.2019Pronounced: 24.06.2019

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the Order dated 30.11.2016 of CIT(A)-20, New Delhi, pertaining to 2012-13 Assessment Year on various grounds including lack of opportunity of being heard. 2. At the time of hearing an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. Considering the material available on record the said request was rejected. Attention of the office employee was invited to the grounds raised on behalf of the assessee wherein the following fact for non-appearance has been drafted on behalf of the assessee: “CIT(A)-20 has confirmed the order due to the non appearance of assessee. It is important to being in your notice that non appearance of assessee after two adjournments was due to his emergency and priority engagements in the prolonged sickness of her mother Mrs. Prakash Kaur i.e. Breash Cancer and after undergoing medical treatment in Delhi State Cancer Institute she lost her life unfortunately.” (emphasis supplied)

3. A perusal of the record shows that the assessee was shown to have been engaged in construction of housing project and constructing dwelling units etc.

ITA No.:- 2176/Del/2018 Baljhinder Singh. The assessee returned an income from contract business and interest on FDRs and saving bank account. Return of income was e-filed declaring an income of Rs. 10,70,110/-. In the scrutiny proceedings, the AO made certain additions as a result of which the taxable income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 14,13,106/-.

Additions were assailed in appeal before the CIT(A). In the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee despite opportunity the additions made were confirmed.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

The Ld. Sr. DR was heard.

On a perusal of the extract of the above argument in the ground it is seen that admittedly the assessee remained non-represented before the CIT(A) for reasons beyond his control. The stated reason is life threatening medical condition of the assessee’s mother. It is also seen that the grievance of the assessee still persists.

Accordingly, considering the fact that an effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard has not been made available to the assessee in the peculiar facts of the present case, in the interests of substantial justice the impugned Order is set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking Order in accordance with law.

The assessee in its own interest is advised to participate fully and fairly before the said authority and not abuse the trust reposed. It is made clear that in the eventuality abuse of the trust reposed the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an Order on the basis of the material available on record. Said Order was pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 124.06.2019 Bidhan/AG(chd)/Poonam(CHD) Page 2 of 3

ITA No.:- 2176/Del/2018 Baljhinder Singh.

BALJHINDER SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(2), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments