ABHISHEK CHOUDHARY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was therefore set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not appear before the AO on the scheduled date of hearing, leading to an addition of Rs. 18.96 lac. The assessee claimed he attended but was informed the AO was on leave, and the order was passed the next day.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the assessment order.
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: Mr. R.S. SYAL
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A), Faridabad on 23.1.2015 in relation to the AY. 2010-11. It is a recalled matter inasmuch as the earlier ex parte order passed by the Tribunal was subsequently recalled on 18.05.2018 in MA No.278/Del/2017.
2. The first issue taken in this appeal is that the learned CIT(A) did not consider the ground that no proper opportunity was provided by the AO after confirming the assessment.
I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record.
The assessment order in this case was passed on 29.11.2011. The notice under section 142(1) dated 3.11.2011 was issued fixing the date of hearing for 28.11.2011. The AO recorded that on such date the assessee did not appear. This resulted into addition of Rs. 18.96 lac towards certain items, whose detail is given in the assessment order. The assessee took up the issue of not providing of adequate opportunity of hearing by the AO before the learned CIT(A) by means of ground no.
The learned CIT(A) did not discuss this ground and dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed a letter dated 14.12.2011 with the Assessing Officer, after the passing of the order, to the effect that he attended the office of the AO on the scheduled date on 28.11.2011 but he was informed that the AO was on leave. It is further observed that the AO passed an order immediately on the next date namely 29.11.2011. In my considered opinion, the assessment order has been passed without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for framing the assessment afresh as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on .07.2018.)
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
