Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 30.05.2016 by ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida.
Common issue is involved in these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
First we will deal with the appeal in 2012-13. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: & 4370/Del/2016 2 Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. “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.
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.”
4. Vide Ground No. 2, the main grievance of the assessee relates to the opportunity of being heard not provided by the ld. CIT(A).
Facts of the case in brief are that the AO considered the assessee as assessee in default and raised the demand of Rs.45,930/- u/s 201(1) and Rs.15,280/- u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) r.w.s. 194C of the Act.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order and confirmed the action of the AO. & 4370/Del/2016 3 Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity of being heard passed this order which is against the principles of natural justice.
In his rival submissions, the ld. DR although supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
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 afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In relevant to the assessment year 2013- 14, the facts are identical as were involved in 2012-13 which we have already adjudicated in ITA Nos. 4369 & 4370/Del/2016 4 Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. the former part of this order , therefore, our findings given therein shall apply mutatis mutandis for the assessment year 2013-14.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 08/11/2017)