M/S. SINGH AUTO LINK PVT. LTD.,BULANDSHAHR vs. DCIT, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6770/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 October 2017AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the adjournment application on the grounds of illness. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee had requested an adjournment due to suffering from typhoid, which was rejected by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment request due to illness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, D.R

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 16/10/2014 passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals), Meerut for the quantum of assessment passed under section 144/263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2007-08.

2.

The assessee, besides challenging the issues on merit, has raised a preliminary issue that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in passing ex-parte order rejecting the application for adjournment moved by the assessee stating that he was suffering from typhoid at that time.

3.

On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s adjournment application and decided the appeal ex-parte without going into merits of the case. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has given a undertaking that now proper compliance would be made before the ld. CIT (A) if the matter can be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

4.

On the other hand, the ld. D.R. objected for remanding the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) on the ground that ample opportunities have been given by the ld. CIT(A).

5.

After considering the rival submissions and on a perusal of the material placed on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the adjournment application which was filed by the assessee on the ground that assessee was suffering from typhoid during that period. Since it was a reasonable ground for not appearing on the date of hearing, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we are remanding the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th October, 2017.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →