RAKHI GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 36(4), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without clearly establishing the genuineness of the assessee's adjournment requests. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income, which was processed. The AO made an addition under Section 68. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte, stating the assessee sought adjournments without substantiating reasons.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 19.03.2018 of ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi.
Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. Action of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in passing ex-parte order without giving the proper opportunity of being heard is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Action of Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in treating exempted long term capital gain of Rs.29,99,400/- as non- genuine and making addition under section 68 of Income Tax Act is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter, submit and withdraw any ground before the appeal is heard.”
2 Rakhi Gupta 3. The main grievance of the assessee vide ground no. 1 relates to the passing of ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A) without giving an opportunity of being heard.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed the return of income on 27.03.2015 declaring an income of Rs.3,61,634/- after claiming deduction u/s VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) amounting to Rs.17,077/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The AO, however, framed the assessment at an income of Rs.33,61,030/- by making the addition of Rs.29,99,400/- u/s 68 of the Act.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the said addition by passing the ex-parte order. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee either sought adjournment on one ground or other without substantiating the reason for the adjournment.
Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due and proper opportunity was not provided by the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition made by the AO in arbitrary manner.
In his rival submission, the ld. Sr. DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee did not comply the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), so there was no alternative except to decide the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte. He simply stated that the notice dated 3 Rakhi Gupta 01.03.2018 was issued to the assessee for hearing on 16.03.2018. However, the assessee furnished a letter of adjournment alongwith Power of Attorney on dak counter. From the above observation of the ld. CIT(A), it is not clear as to what were the reasons for seeking the adjournment. It is also not brought on record as to whether the reasons given by the assessee for seeking the adjournment were genuine. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice and the maxim “audi alteram partem” which means that nobody should be condemned unheard, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 06/11/2018)
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026