AFZALGARH MAHAVIDYALAYA,AFZALGARH vs. ITO - 3(5), DHAMPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to respond to multiple notices. The assessee argued they were not properly represented, while the department contended multiple opportunities were given.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte was justified, and if not, whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) or the AO for fresh adjudication.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 11.01.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Shri Deepak Joshi, appearing on behalf of assessee submitted at the outset that this appeal is against an ex-parte of the CIT(A). He submitted that since the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A). This appeal may be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. Shri Kanv Bali, representing the department submitted that the assessee was given multiple opportunities by the CIT(A), but the assessee failed to respond to the notices. The assessee either filed adjournment petition or failed to respond to notices issued by the CIT(A). Hence, it cannot be said that the assessee was not given fair opportunity before the CIT(A). Thus, he prayed for upholding the order of CIT(A). He made an alternate prayer that if at all the issue is to be restored, the same may be restored to Assessing Officer (AO), as the assessee failed to provide relevant documents/information to the AO during assessment proceedings. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee in ex- parte proceedings upholding the additions made in assessment order. The CIT(A) had issued seven notices to the assessee. The assessee either failed to respond to said notice or sought adjournment. We further observe that the assessee has failed to provide relevant information as sought by the AO. 4.1 Taking into consideration entire facts of the case as emanating from the orders of the authorities below, without commenting on merits we deem it appropriate to restore these issues back to the file of AO for denovo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026