What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the authorities below passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue back to the AO for a de-novo assessment, granting proper opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee filed a stay application seeking to stay an outstanding demand. The assessee's representative argued that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

Anjali Singla, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: ‘Friday’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K.PANDA & SMT. BEENA A PILLAISmt. Anjali Singla

For Respondent: Ms. Aastha Lakshmi, Sr.D.R

Hearing: 08/03/2019Pronounced: 13/03/2019

ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present Stay Application has been filed by assessee seeking stay of outstanding demand amounting to Rs.1,60,52,740/-. Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order as well as order of Ld.CIT (A) has been passed without giving an opportunity to assessee of being

ITA 737/Del/2019 AY:2012-13 Mrs.Anjali Singla, N.Del vs. ITO, Ward 47(4), N.Del SA No.236/Del/19(Arising out of ITA 737/Del/19) Mrs.Anjali Singla heard. He submitted that orders passed by authorities below are ex parte orders.

Upon a query being raised by the Bench regarding reason for non-appearance of assessee, or her representatives before authorities below, Ld.AR submitted that representatives of assessee were busy with sale of movable and immovable assets owned by Ashirvad Jewellery House charged to bank through E-auction under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act at the time when assessment proceedings were going on. Ld.A.R. relied on public notice for sale of assets by Bank of Maharashtra to whom dues are outstanding of Rs.9,90,48,371/- along with penal interest @2% per annum, was pending payable by M/s Ashirvad Jewellery House. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that opportunity may be granted to assessee to present its case along with necessary evidence and documents in respect of it’s claim. Ld.Sr.DR vehemently submitted that, no deposits have been made by assessee against outstanding demand till date, and therefore, blanket stay may not be granted to assessee.

We have perused records placed before us in light of arguments advanced by both sides.

It is observed that authorities below passed ex-parte order and assessee has not obtained opportunity of being heard before the authorities below. We are therefore inclined to set aside the issue back to file of Ld.AO for de-novo assessment by granting proper opportunity to assessee. Assessee is directed to file all

ITA 737/Del/2019 AY:2012-13 Mrs.Anjali Singla, N.Del vs. ITO, Ward 47(4), N.Del SA No.236/Del/19(Arising out of ITA 737/Del/19) Mrs.Anjali Singla requisite details as called for in respect of claims made and cooperate in completing of assessment. 5. We accordingly allow grounds raised by assessee in the appeal for statistical purposes.

6. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

7. As we have already set aside the issue back to Ld. AO for de- novo assessment, the Stay Application filed by assessee becomes ‘infructuous’.

8. Accordingly the same stands dismissed as infructuous. Pronounced in Open Court on 13/3/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K.PANDA) (BEENA A PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 13th March, 2019. *gmv

ITA 737/Del/2019 AY:2012-13 Mrs.Anjali Singla, N.Del vs. ITO, Ward 47(4), N.Del SA No.236/Del/19(Arising out of ITA 737/Del/19) Mrs.Anjali Singla

ANJALI SINGLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(4), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments