M/S SUNRISE DISTRIBUTERS,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4368/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 November 2017AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without being given an opportunity to be heard. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) adjudicated on an issue not part of the original appeal and without providing a hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when passed ex-parte without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 194C(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 09.11.2017Pronounced: 09.11.2017

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the ex-parte order dated 30.05.2016 by ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Noida has erred in law as well as on facts by treating the assessee in default under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by invoking section 194C(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-I, Noida has erred in law as well as on facts by adjudicating on the issue which was not the subject matter of the appeal, without providing any opportunity to the assessee.

2 Sunrise Distributers 3. Any other ground of appeal

, which may be taken up during the course of appellate proceedings.

4. The appellant carves leave to add, alter, amend, raise or delete any or all grounds of appeal.”

3. Vide Ground No. 2, the grievance of the assessee relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity of being heard.

4.

During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In his rival submissions, the ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

6.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, 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 3 Sunrise Distributers afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 09/11/2017)

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →