LALIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4810/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly discussing the facts and circumstances, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) as disallowance of forfeiture of bank guarantee. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 23.05.2018 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-13, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds of appeal: - 1) The Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of being heard and appreciating the correct facts of the case is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of disallowance of forfeiture of bank guarantee by DTC as claimed by assessee as business expenditure. 2) Appellant company has every right to make, add, delete, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to assessee to present his case; passed the exparte order despite the fact that the assessee was prevented from appearing because of the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Hence, he requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and not objected the request of the ld. counsel for the assessee.

5.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the impugned order, I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without properly discussing in detail the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.1 In this regard, I draw support from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case M/s Sahara India (Farms) Vs. CIT & Anr. in [2008] 300 ITR 403 wherein it has held that even “an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice”.

6.

In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedent, as aforesaid, I remit back the issues in dispute to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider each and every aspects of the issues involved in the Appeal and decide the same afresh and pass a speaking order by consider all the evidences/documents. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard.

However, the Assessee is directed to file all the evidences/documents etc. before him to substantiate his case.

Assessee is also directed not to take any unnecessary adjournment in the proceedings.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →