GIRISH KUMAR SONI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2349/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 2018AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the impugned orders ex-parte. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against orders passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the orders ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte in violation of natural justice principles. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also to be adjudicated afresh.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Smt. Meenu Mittal, CA
Hearing: 19.09.2018Pronounced: 24.09.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2348/Del/2018
ITA No. 2349/Del/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate order dated 30.09.2016 & 31.03.2017 of ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida. 2. The appeal in for the assessment year 2009-10, following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned CIT(A) in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO is wrong and bad in law.

1.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13.03 Lac without considering the facts of the case.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in enhancing the addition by Rs. 19,04,228 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

2 & 2349/Del/2018 Girish Kumar Soni 4. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

3. The another appeal by the assessee in relates to the penalty sustained by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee which is in violation of the natural justice.

5.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We 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) passed the impugned orders ex-parte, it is also not mentioned as to whether the notices for hearing were served upon the assessee or not. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside these cases back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →