CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) on 08.07.2024, nearly a year after the last notice of hearing. The CIT(A) order arose from a de novo assessment framed by the AO following a tribunal's remand order, with appeals related to this matter still pending before the Delhi High Court. The assessee contended that the order was passed without affording a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal observed the significant time gap between the last notice and the ex-parte order, and the ongoing proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Upholding principles of objectivity, fairness, and justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the entire matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order after a considerable delay without fresh notice, especially when related matters were pending before the High Court.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 254
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 3515/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10
Consulting Engineering Services Vs DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi (India) Private Ltd., 2nd Floor Plot no. 184, Platinum Tower, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon-122016.
PAN- AAACC 5110 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv.; Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv.; & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Department represented by Shri Surender Pal, CIT( DR) Date of hearing 29.10.2024 Date of pronouncement 30.10.2024
O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM:
Captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the
first appellate order dated 08.07.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961,
hereafter referred to as the “Act”, which in turn arises from the order passed u/s
143(3) read with section 254 of the Act dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Assessing
Officer for the assessment year 2009-10 in question.
The assessee has raised several ground to assail the first appellate order
passed ex parte.
When the matter was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee
submitted at the outset that the first appellate order has been passed vide order
dated 8.7.2024 whereas the last notice of hearing was issued nearly an year back
on 7.8.2023. In the intervening period no other notice was issued towards hearing
by the CIT(Appeals). It is thus not fair for the First Appellate Authority to pass an
order in pursuance of a notice issued long back. The learned counsel for the
assessee thereafter referred to the reply filed by the assessee dated 7.8.2023
wherein the assessee pointed out that intention of the CIT(A) that the appeal by the
assessee shall be taken after the final decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on
the subject matter in dispute. The learned counsel further pointed out that the
Tribunal vide order dated 29.5.2019 passed a remand order and directed the AO to
frame the assessment de novo. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals
before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the appeal in the
High Court de novo assessment order was passed by the AO. Aggrieved by the de
novo assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Without
affording any opportunity to the assessee, the CIT(A) passed the impugned order
dated 8.7.2024 which is subject matter of present appeal. The learned counsel thus
submitted that in the present set of circumstances where the CIT(A) has passed the
order unilaterally after a gap of nearly one year from the date of last notice, it will
be only fair to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in
accordance with law after taking cognizance of the submissions and explanation
which may be offered by the assessee before the CIT(A) on the substantive aspects
of appeal.
The learned CIT(DR) did not per se object to the restoration of matter for fresh adjudication where it appears to the Tribunal that principles of natural justice
have been flouted.
In the peculiar facts of the case where the first appellate order in question
has been passed after a considerable gap after the last issue of notice and where the
proceedings were pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it will be only fair
to give proper chance to the assessee to represent its case in right earnest. Guided
by the principles of objectivity, fairness and justice, we consider it just and
expedient to restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall
pass a speaking order on the points raised by the assessee after giving proper
opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 30.10.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30.10.2024. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
