HARVEER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 289/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 March 2024AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons reasonable. It emphasized that NFAC should have ensured proper service of notice. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC/CIT(A) for a fresh decision, mandating that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an NFAC order dated 23.08.2023 for A.Y 2012-13, which was delayed by 97 days. The assessee's main contention was that the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's action through an ex-parte order because the assessee allegedly did not receive any notice from the CIT(A)/NFAC and, therefore, could not attend the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Validity of an ex-parte order passed by CIT(A)/NFAC due to alleged non-service of hearing notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.03.2024Pronounced: 27.03.2024

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 23.08.2023 by the NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y 2012-13.

2.

The appeal is late by 97 days.

3.

Finding the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay to be reasonable, the delay is condoned.

3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by an exparte order.

4.

Before me, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee did not receive any notice from the office of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and, therefore, could not attend the proceedings.

5.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the impugned order by the NFAC. In my considered opinion, NFAC should have ensured that the notice issued by it was actually served upon the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the NFAC/CIT(A) to be decided afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →