Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2018-19 were dismissed by the learned CIT(A). For AY 2016-17, the dismissal was due to non-compliance during appellate proceedings. For AY 2018-19, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to a 130-day delay in filing.
Held
The Tribunal held that although opportunities were granted, the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) were without hearing the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice. The appeals were set aside and remitted back to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and whether the dismissal was justified on grounds of non-compliance or delay.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
These appeals by the assessee are emanating from the impugned order dated 12/12/2023, passed for the assessment year 2016–17 and order dated 24/09/2023, passed for the assessment year 2018–19, by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”].
Insofar as the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 is concerned, during the course of hearing, we find that, as stated by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order, that due to non-compliance and/or non-co-operation on behalf of the assessee during the first appellate
2 Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. A.Y. 2016–17 & 2018–19 proceedings, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal without going onto the merits of the issues raised by the assessee.
3. As regards assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 is concerned, as stated by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order, we find that there is a delay of 130 days in filing the first appeal before the learned CIT(A) and as a result of which the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal as not maintainable due to delay in filing the appeal before him.
When these appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned orders without granting reasonable opportunity for hearing which resulted in passing of impugned orders by the learned CIT(A). He thus prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring these appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its cases before the learned CIT(A).
2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assesses, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).
I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. I find that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the orders passed by him are without hearing the assessee.
3 Sant Tukdoji Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. A.Y. 2016–17 & 2018–19 Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the cases and to meet the ends of justice, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(A) are hereby set aside and remit back the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate these appeal afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.