Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's representative failed to appear before the CIT(A) on the last hearing date due to being busy with time-barring assessments, leading to the CIT(A) passing an order without providing an opportunity of being heard. The assessee appealed this decision, contending that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2 of the appeal, finding that the CIT(A) had passed the order without providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a clear direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order, passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violated principles of natural justice and requires a remand for de-novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: DR. B. R. R. KUMAR & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
Appellant by Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv Respondent Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR by Date of Hearing 20.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.05.2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Income Tax Department/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) dated 30/11/2022 for Assessment Year 2014-15.
As per Ground No. 2 of the Appeal, the assessee pleaded that the representative of the assessee could not appear on the date of hearing before the CIT(A) as the said date had been inadvertently
Milky Investment and Trading Company Vs. ACIT skipped by the Authorized Representative as he was busy in compliance with time barring assessments.
The Assessee's Representative submitted that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and justified the order of the Lower Authorities.
Heard and perused the material. Considering the fact that the assessee has not appeared on 01/11/2022, which was the last date of hearing before the CIT(A), and the Assessee's Representative was claimed to be busy in compliance with the time barring assessments could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without providing opportunity to the Assessee, with his intention to provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee, we allow Ground No.2 of the Appeal and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication of the Appeal. Nevertheless, the assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard.
Milky Investment and Trading Company Vs. ACIT 7. In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.