MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1571/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 2024AY 2006-07Bench: SH. G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits and without providing proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after ensuring the assessee is given a full opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which originated from a Dy. CIT order under Sections 147/143(3) of the IT Act. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing or considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee, who contended that the impugned order was passed without due process.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing and without considering the merits of the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. G.S. PANNU & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 02/05/2024Pronounced: 09/07/2024

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (here in after referred as ‘NFAC’) arising out of order of Dy.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Gurgaon under Section 147/143(3) of the IT Act.

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

At the time of hearing it was pointed out by the AR that without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without considering the submissions of assessee the impugned order is passed by CIT(A). The DR though contented that the CIT(A) mentions in the order as to four notices issued to the assessee and the adjournments were sought.

4.

As we go through the impugned order we find that the CIT(A) does mention four notices dated 23.12.2020, 01.02.2023, 21.02.2023 and 20.03.2023 being issued. The CIT(A) mentions that in consequence to notice dated 20.03.2023 assessee was supposed to respond by 23.03.2023. The CIT(A) mentions that in furtherance of these notices relevant document were not furnished. The Ld. AR, however, countered this and has submitted that no such document was required by the CIT(A).

5.

We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without touching the merits at all. At pages 489 to 525 the assessee has placed on record the copy of form-35 alongwith the detailed submission on the ground. The CIT(A) has however, not taken same into consideration.

6.

We consider it appropriate case to restore the issue to the files of the CIT(A) to pass an order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, with consequences to follow as per the directions above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →