AAKASH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(2), NEW DELI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3668/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were given insufficient time to respond to notices. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the transportation business, filed an appeal against an order that dismissed their earlier appeal due to non-prosecution. The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment with additions, and the CIT(A) upheld the dismissal without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to respond to notices and whether the appeal was wrongly dismissed on non-prosecution without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Aggarwal, CA & Sh. V.B
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.04.2025Pronounced: 01.04.2025

Appellant by : Shri Vaibhav Aggarwal, CA & Sh. V.B. Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 01.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.04.2025 ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM:

1.

The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 18.10.2023, relating to assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in transportation of goods to various states from Delhi by using own trucks as well as by using trucks of other transporter under the name and style as “Road Carrier” under his proprietorship. Return of income was e-filed on 04.11.2017 and assessment has been completed at Rs. 2,11,55,633/- u/s. 143(3) of the Act by making additions. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that AO has given a very short period to respond to the notices and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution and without deciding the matter on merits of the case. Upon careful consideration, we find considerable cogency in the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR, therefore, in our considered view the interest of justice will be served, if the issues are remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. We hold and direct accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →