AXIS RISK CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8271/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 April 2019AY 2014-156 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, which is against the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without sufficient opportunity. The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without discussing the merits of the case. The assessee sought a fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without granting a proper opportunity of being heard and without passing a speaking order on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

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 “FRIDAY-F” BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU

order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-32, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds raised in the main appeal read as under:- 1. That on the facts and in law the orders passed

by both the CIT(A) and the AO are bad in law and void ab initio.

1.1 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not granting a proper opportunity of being heard.

2. Without prejudice, that on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating upon the issues in dispute i.e. the Grounds of appeals

raised by the appellant in Form no. 35.

3. That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in making / upholding disallowance of Share Based Compensation Cost of Rs.

56,44,000/-.

4. That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in making / upholding disallowance of 2

Proportionate Total Interest Cost of Rs.

17,33,360/-.

5. That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in making / upholding disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 42,83,298/- incurred by the appellant as fee paid to M/s Ztek Consulting Inc

by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act.

That the appellant prays for the leave to add, alter, amend and / or vary the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.

3.

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

4.

Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte and non-speaking order, without discussing the merit of the case. Hence, he requested that this matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and decide on merits and pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has given various opportunities to the assessee, but the assessee remained non-cooperative and as a result thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) has no option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. But she has objection for setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records as well as the relevant provisions of law, we are of the view that there is no doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A). We further find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order, without discussing in detail the facts and circumstance of the case and also did not deal the issue on merit and passed a non-speaking order, which in our opinion, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is an erroneous approach. After reading Section 250(6) of the Act, we are also of the considered view that Assessee’s case should be decided on merits, which the Ld. CIT(A) has not done. However, it is a settled law that even an administrative order has to be speaking one. In this regard, we 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 been held that even “an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice”.

5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for hearing on 09.05.2019 with the directions to consider each and every aspects of the issues involved in 4 the Appeal and decide the same afresh, after considering all the evidences/documents and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Assessee through his counsel is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 09.05.2019 for hearing and file all necessary evidences / documents to substantiate his case and did not take any unnecessary adjournment in the case before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the date of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) has been intimated in the Open Court, there is no need to send the notices to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the Assessee’s Application for Early Hearing is dismissed and the Main Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner. Order pronounced on 01-04-2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →