RAJINDER SINGH,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JODHPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for non-appearance genuine, quashed the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order, noting that non-cooperation would allow the CIT(A) to decide based on available evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal challenged a CIT(A) order confirming an addition, which was passed ex-parte because the assessee did not appear before the AO or the CIT(A) despite receiving notices. The assessee's counsel requested a fresh opportunity to present the case on merits, acknowledging the previous non-appearances.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) when prior orders were passed ex-parte due to non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A), Jodhpur whereby and whereunder the addition made by the Ld. AO stood confirmed in the absence of any assistance rendered by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. In fact, though notices were served upon the assessee no appearance was made, and having no other alternative the appeal was decided ex-parte. Rajinder Singh
It is noted that assessee even before the Ld. AO did not appear in spite of notices were issued and served upon him. Under this present facts and circumstances of the matter, the Ld. A.R submitted that as the assessee was not been able to appear before the authorities below, the case could not be represented effectively and the issue could not be considered in its proper perspective by the said authorities. In that event, he prayed for a further opportunity of being heard in order to enable him to represent assessee’s case on merit. Such prayer has not been objected by the Ld. D.R with all his fairness.
Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter, the reason for not been able to appear before the authorities below by the appellant seems to be genuine. Further that in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice this issue is required to be adjudicated by the authorities below afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In that view of the matter, the order impugned is quashed and the issue is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the same afresh upon considering the evidence on record, and any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to pass a reasoned order. It is also made clear that in the event, the assessee does not cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) the said authority would be at liberty to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law.
Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
