NIKHIL SEN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 66(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6057/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 December 2017AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a due and effective opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing it was made ex-parte without a proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee's counsel stated that a hearing date was missed due to non-service of notice and that the CIT(A) did not provide findings on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI. AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, D.R

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 9/8/2017, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-21, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Vide grounds No.1 to 4, the assessee has challenged that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard on merits.

3.

The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Salil Aggarwal drawing our attention to page 4 of the impugned order, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has noted the dates of issuance of notices and the date fixed for hearing and pointed out before the ld. CIT(A) that, so far as the date fixed for hearing on 11/7/2017, the ld. counsel for the assessee had duly appeared before the ld. CIT(A) along with written submissions, however, the same was not taken on record and was informed that a fresh notice shall be issued. Thereafter, a notice was sent from the office of the ld. CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing for 8/8/2017, which, Mr. Aggarwal stated that it has not been served upon the assessee. Ld. counsel further submitted that the ld. CIT(A), as per mandate of law, was required to give his findings on merits, which he has not done and, therefore, great hardship and prejudice has caused to the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances, he prayed that the matter can be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh and in accordance to law.

4.

The ld. D.R. also accepted that the matter can be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and assessee should ensure that on the date fixed for hearing, assessee appears and represent its case.

5.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we feel that the matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh and in accordance with the law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall move an application before the ld. CIT(A) for early hearing of the matter and shall comply with the notices sent from the office of the ld. CIT(A) for hearing. With these directions, the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal expeditiously.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st December, 2017.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →