STENLEY APPARELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 24(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to furnish evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was framed ex-parte under Section 144/147 as notices were returned unserved, and no one attended the final hearing. The assessee claimed a change in management and business led to non-attendance.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard during the assessment and appellate proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-8, New Delhi dated 02.08.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that no proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard was given and the first appellate authority further erred in not appreciating the evidence furnished during the appellate proceedings.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessment was framed u/s 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’] vide order dated 09.09.2014. On the finding that though the notices were issued by the Assessing Officer, but the same were returned back unserved, finally, one notice was served upon the assessee through the Inspector, providing final opportunity. In response to this notice, the assessee did attend the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish certain details/documents. Again, on the next date of hearing, nobody attended and the assessment was framed ex-parte at an assessed income of Rs. 21,23,218/-.
The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the CIT(A). The first appellate authority framed the appellate order as nobody responded to the notice issued by his office.
Before me, the ld. AR stated that since there was change of management in F.Y. 2005-06, it was the new management which has been doing the business of owning and operating a hotel and the assessee company has since been running its hotel business under the name of Paras Hotel at Karol Bagh address. It is the say of the ld. AR that with the change in the management, address and nature of business, the assessee could not attend the proceedings before the lower authorities and could not substantiate its case properly.
Per contra, the ld. DR stated that several notices were issued and, in fact, one of the notices of the Assessing Officer was served through an Inspector, therefore, it cannot be said that no proper opportunity was given by the lower authorities.
I have carefully considered the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that the management of the appellant company has changed. Hence, it appears that not only the management has changed, but also the nature of business has changed. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it fit to restore the entire issues to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issues afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer and file necessary details/ documents/evidences sought by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is, accordingly, directed to decide the issues on the basis of evidences furnished by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2018.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026