BAJRANG LAL PERIWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2300/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 April 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard, which constituted a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing a fresh hearing and consideration of all evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for multiple assessment years. The assessee's counsel argued that the ex-parte orders were made despite requests for adjournment due to the assessee's severe illness, which prevented him from briefing his CA, and medical prescriptions were provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite the assessee's medical condition preventing his appearance and briefing of counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Divyansh Jain, Advocate, Shri Rajat Jain, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Rishipal Bedi, CIT-DR
Hearing: 24.04.2024

O R D E R PER BENCH:

The bunch of appeals filed at the behest of the assessee are directed against the common order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi arising out of the common order dated 29.09.2021 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3), 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2019-20 and 2020-21 respectively. Since all the appeals are filed by the same assessee and the issues at the present moment before us are identical, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.

2.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeals, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are exparte order. The Ld. AR fairly submitted that though number of occasions the matters were fixed for hearing, the assessee was unable to appear before the Appellate forum. However, it was further contended by him that adjournment was sought for on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of illness of the assessee due to old age having severe weakness and unable to walk or to do any type of movement. He is overweight and post corona patient which was also mentioned by the son of the assessee in writing to the concerned CA engaged for the assessee. Due to such illness of the assessee the data/brief of the case was not been able to be provided to the concerned CA to represent the matters before the Ld. CIT(A) in its proper perspective. The medical prescriptions issued by the out patient department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, New Delhi was also annexed to the said letter written by the son of the assessee. The concerned CA, in turn, informed the same to the Ld. CIT(A) by and under his letter dated 27.06.2023 while seeking adjournment on behalf of the assessee. Inspite of the said request for adjournment in the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded with the appeals and finalized the same exparte. Relevant to mention that the Ld. Counsel appearing for the

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →