GOVIND RAM & PARTY GROUP,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3720/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 December 2017AY 2001-023 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without proper service of notice and adherence to natural justice principles. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, citing non-service of notice and apparent lack of interest from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice and adhering to the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 14.12.2017Pronounced: 18.12.2017

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3.

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. We, therefore, decided the appeal ex- parte, after hearing the ld. DR who supported the orders passed by the authorities below.

Govind Ram & Party Group 4. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without deciding the issue on merit by passing the ex-parte order. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) in paras 9.2 & 9.3 are as under: “9.2 The then CIT(A) vide his letter dated 12.10.2007 had obtained the para-wise comments of Assessing Officer on the contentions of Appellant. Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 09.10.2007 has submitted her report, a copy of which was given to Appellant. Appellant has submitted his reply on 28.01.2009. Appellant has been issued various notices u/s 250, fixing his case for hearing, the details of which are as under:- S.No. Notice issued on Case fixed for Remarks 1. 04.12.2015 22.12.2015 Received back unserved 2. 12.02.2016 22.02.2016 Served 3. 23.02.2016 15.03.2016 Received back unserved 9.3 Therefore, it is apparent that Appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal.”

5.

In the present case, from the above observations of the ld. CIT(A), it is clear that the last notice for hearing was not served upon the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) simply mentioned that the notice issued on 23.02.2016 for fixing the case on 15.03.2016 was received back unserved.

Govind Ram & Party Group However, no reason has been given for non service of the notice. It is also not clear as to whether any effort was made to serve the notice on 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 the impugned order and remand the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 18/12/2017)

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →