M/S. HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP ORTHONOVA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2784/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2017AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the case de novo after affording an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds 1 and 2 were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(A) as the assessee did not appear. The assessee raised grounds related to violation of natural justice due to lack of show cause notice and opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's action without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN, & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

Hearing: 27.11.2017Pronounced: 29.11.2017

ORDER

PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi vide order dated 03.03.2016 for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 6 grounds of appeal. Mainly Ground Nos. 3 and 4 have been pressed, which are reproduced herein below:

1.

“3. The Assessing Officer has erred in passing the impugned penalty order without issuing show cause notice specifically proposing to make illegal addition nor any effective opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the unlawful action of the Assessing Officer and hence the impugned order passed in violation of natural justice is liable to be quashed.

4. The Assessing Officer has erred in passing the impugned penalty order without issuing show cause notice specifically proposing to make any addition nor any effective opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the unlawful action of the Assessing Officer and hence the impugned order passed in violation of natural justice is liable to be quashed.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was filed. So we heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record.

4.

At the very outset, it was brought to our notice by the ld. DR that the case has been decided ex parte by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and find that it is a matter of fact that as per reading of para 5.2 of the impugned order, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite service of notice sent to it the address as per record. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.3 has held that he has no option but to adjudicate the appeal on merit. Therefore, he decided the issue exparte qua the assessee by allowing some relief. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee who has raised a specific ground of appeal, though none was present before us too. We, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) who will decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground Nos 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →