HARDIK GARMENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 11(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4244/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 June 2019AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The stay application was dismissed as infructuous because the appeal was restored.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought a stay on an outstanding demand after their appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The assessee claimed they did not receive hearing notices, while the department initially suggested a partial deposit for stay.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without considering facts is justified when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices. The primary issue was the restoration of the appeal for a fresh hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH FRIDAY ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv
For Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.06.2019Pronounced: 14.06.2019

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : By means of this Stay Application, the Applicant seeks stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 1,67,98,590/- pertaining to assessment year 2015-16.

1.

2.0 The Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the assessee’s appeal ex parte qua the assessee applicant, and, therefore, a complete stay of the outstanding demand should be Stay No. 659/D/2019 (In granted to the applicant.

2.1 The ld. Sr. DR opposed the complete stay of demand and argued that the stay should be given subject to the applicant depositing at least 50% of the outstand demand.

2.2 We have heard both the parties and have also gone through the impugned order in . It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A)-22 vide order dated 18.02.2019 had dismissed the applicant assessee’s appeal in limine without considering the facts of the case for the simple reason that the assessee did not appear when the appeal was fixed for hearing. The ld. AR has made a statement at the Bench that the notices for the hearing of appeal were not received by the assessee applicant.

2.3 Ld. Sr. DR had no objection to the issue being restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

2.4 Ld. AR has also agreed that the issue can be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. In view of the concurrence of both the parties, we restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is also directed to keep track of the appellate proceedings and appear before the Stay No. 659/D/2019 (In ld. CIT(A) when called upon to do so, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the appeal ex parte qua the assessee as per law.

3.

Since the appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), the stay application becomes infructuous and is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the stay application stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th JUNE 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →