AKSHAY KUMAR SONI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- I, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 308/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 June 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 25,65,000 to the assessee's income due to discrepancies between Form 26AS and the Income Tax Return (ITR), and the assessee's failure to provide the source of cash receipts. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 05.06.2018Pronounced: 11.06.2018

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 03.11.2017 of ld. CIT(A), Ghzaiabad.

2.

The only grounds raised

1.

in this appeal reads as under: “1. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.25,65,000/- by passing ex-parte order u/s 250 without giving proper opportunity of being heard even when there was no time-barring limit.”

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed the return of income on 27.03.2015 declaring an income of Rs.12,32,740/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of Rs.25,65,000/- by observing that there was difference in the Akshay Kumar Soni receipts shown in Form No. 26AS and shown in the ITR and that the assessee has not furnished source of cash receipts. Accordingly, the income was assessed at Rs.37,97,740/-.

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by passing the ex-parte order and sustained the addition made by the AO.

5.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no opportunity of being heard was given by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO.

6.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the AO.

7.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee ex- parte by observing that the date was fixed for hearing on 27.09.2017 and the assessee requested for adjournment. The case was adjourned to 11.10.2017. On that date was also application was received for adjournment. The ld. CIT(A) although mentioned that the case was adjourned to 26.10.2017. However, it is not mentioned as to whether the said date was communicated to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld.

Akshay Kumar Soni CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/06/2018)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →