Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI L.P. SAHU
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.820/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Smt. Akansha Singhal, The DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad. PAN CGPPS3517P Room No.201, 2nd Floor, vs C/o. Raj Kumar & Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad. Associates, CAs, L-7A (LGF), South Extension, U.P. Part-II, New Delhi.110049. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Raj Kumar And Shri Sumit Goyal, C.As. For Revenue : Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida, Dated 28th September, 2018, for the A.Y. 2015-2016.
2 ITA.No.820/Del./2019 Smt. Akansha Singhal, Ghaziabad.
The Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that assessee has filed the appeal online. However, only Form-35 is available on the website of the Department which has been downloaded by the Office. The impugned penalty order and copy of the demand notice is not available on record. Notice dated 04.09.2018 was issued to the assessee for hearing of the appeal for 20.09.2018. The assessee through their Counsel filed an application requesting for adjournment because written submissions and paper book is under preparation and compilation. It is noted that no Power of Attorney and other details have been produced. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the request for adjournment and in the absence of assessee, dismissed the appeal of assessee.
After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that it was the first date of hearing of the appeal, on which, no adjournment has been granted to the assessee. Therefore, no proper opportunity of hearing of the 3 ITA.No.820/Del./2019 Smt. Akansha Singhal, Ghaziabad. appeal have been granted. He has further submitted that it is appeal against the quantum assessment order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that impugned penalty order is not available on the website of the department. He has referred to electronic appeal filed with Ld. CIT(A), in which, details of the challan have been mentioned and in the annexures, copy of the demand along with order appealed, have been filed with the O/o. CIT(A). These facts clearly show that there was no fault attributable to the assessee in filing the relevant documents along with the appeal papers. The Ld. CIT(A) on the very first date of hearing of the appeal proceeded ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee to prepare the case. The request for adjournment in writing was made seeking only 20 days time. These facts clearly show that impugned order is wholly unjustified and is liable to be set aside. The Ld. CIT(A) did not give reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3.1. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of assessee to the file of Ld.
4 ITA.No.820/Del./2019 Smt. Akansha Singhal, Ghaziabad. CIT(A)-1, Noida, with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee on merits strictly as per Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court.