BEEHIVE SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1058/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 March 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) orders lacked details on notice service. It was held that the assessee deserved an opportunity for a merit-based hearing. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2013-14 and 2017-18. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for AY 2013-14 as 'not admitted' due to alleged defects and for AY 2017-18 due to non-response to notices, without deciding on merits. The assessee's representative claimed defects were rectified and notices were not received.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing/not admitting appeals without deciding on merits and without proper verification of notice service.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, CA
For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.02.2024Pronounced: 29.02.2024
2.

At the time of hearing, it came up that the appeals have not been decided on merit by the ld.CIT(A) and, in fact, the order of the ld.CIT(A) mentions that there were certain deficiencies which were allegedly communicated to the appellant assessee by letter dated 01.09.2022, in case of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and the assessee had failed to remove the defects. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal mentioning ‘not admitted’.

2.1 In AY 2017-18, the ld.CIT(A) observes that notices were issued on four occasions, but, there were no response from the assessee and, therefore, following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 and other judicial verdicts for similar rationale, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

3.

The ld. AR has pointed out before us that as far as the issue of technical defects is concerned, the reply was submitted and as such, there were no technical defects. As for AY 2017-18, it was submitted that no notices were received.

4.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as canvassed, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to contest on merits. The orders of the ld.CIT(A) although mentions of the notices being

ITAs No.1058 & 1059/Del/2023 issued, but, the mode of serving notices and the actual service report is not reflected.

5.

Thus, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the issues on merits are restored to the files of the ld.CIT(A), who shall, after giving an opportunity to the assessee, dispose of the appeals with a fresh order.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →