CHINMAYEE AGRAWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1244/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2018AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's adjournment application and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee claims they were not given an adequate opportunity to be heard and had filed an adjournment application that was not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the assessee's adjournment application and providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: Shri Ashwini Taneja, Adv, Shri Saurabh Goyal, CA, Shri Priyansh Jain, CA
Hearing: 28.11.2018Pronounced: 29.11.2018

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Ghaziabad dated 03.11.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The main grievance of the assessee is that the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee without affording any opportunity of being heard to him.

3.

I have carefully considered the orders of the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has extracted the assessment order from pages 1 to 25 and on page 26 of his order he has referred to three notices, which were served upon the assessee. On 11.10.2017, the assessee sought adjournment to 25.10.2017. On 25.10.2017, further adjournment was sought to 27.10.2017. As per the first appellate authority, none appeared on that date and, therefore, he dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

4.

Before me, the ld. AR furnished an adjournment application dated 27.10.2017 filed before the first appellate authority seeking further time. The application is supported by the receipt of speed post. The CIT(A) framed the appellate order dated 03.11.2017 without considering this application of the assessee. Moreover, the appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution whereas the appeal should have been decided on merits of the case. In my considered opinion, the assessee should get one more chance to defend his case. I, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the entire issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →