RAJEEV VOHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2079/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 September 2018AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even if a proper response was not received from the assessee. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine. The assessee is aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order sustaining an addition of Rs. 15,15,690/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and whether the addition sustained was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: Shri Umang Sahai, Adv
Hearing: 04.09.2018Pronounced: 05.09.2018

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-16, New Delhi dated 04.10.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 15,15,690/-.

3.

A perusal of the order of the first appellate authority shows that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine. No doubt, the first appellate authority did issue notices and the same were served and even if no proper response was received from the assessee, the first appellate authority ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, I restore this appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh by considering the merits of the case and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

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

The order is pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →