Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (First Appellate Authority) u/s 250, which had confirmed an assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 for AY 2011-12. The assessee contended that the FAA passed its order without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, specifically by ignoring a duly filed adjournment request.
Held
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority was not justified in proceeding ex-parte without taking cognizance of the assessee's adjournment application. It concluded that the FAA failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in passing an ex-parte order without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, particularly by not considering an adjournment request.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Meharban Ali, Vs ITO, S/o Samyadin, 231 Shaikh Sahiban, Ward-3(3), Khurja Bulandshahr 203131 Bulandshahr. PAN: ARJPA6243M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Anshul, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
The assessee is in appeal against the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC or hereinafter referred as the Ld. First Appellate Authority) in Appeal against an assessment order dated 24.12.2018 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3) Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred as the Assessing Officer or in short AO) passed u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Heard and perused the record.
At the time of hearing it transpired that among other grounds on merits assessee has also assailed the impugned order of ld. First Appellate Authority on the basis that without giving adequate opportunity of hearing the impugned order was passed. 4. The ld. AR has placed before us, a screenshot of the ITBA portal of the Revenue Department wherein on 30.03.2023, an adjournment was sought from ld. First Appellate Authority, on the basis that assessee is collecting relevant information and adjournment was sought of 14.04.2023. However, the ld. First Appellate Authority passed the impugned order on 11.04.2023 itself. The ld. DR has submitted, that sufficient opportunities of hearing were given but assessee had not filed any response before NFAC. In this context, after taking into consideration the sequence of events with regard to issuance of notices it comes up that notices were repeatedly issued through ITBA system on various occasions and with regard to last notice dated 23.03.2023, the CIT(A) takes note of the fact that after this notice assessee had not responded. Thus, quite apparently the First Appellate Authority has not taken cognizance of the adjournment sought on 30.03.2023. Rather in concluding para 5 on page 5 of the order, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has observed “the appellant neither file submission nor requested for adjournment in response to this notice dated 23.03.2023”.
We are of the considered view that without taking cognizance of the adjournment application the Ld. First Appellate Authority has failed to justify proceeding ex-parte and to adjudicate the grounds on merits. The issue is restored to the files of ld. CIT(A) to given an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide afresh.
The appeal be considered allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.05.2024.