Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged separate orders of the CIT(A) for multiple assessment years (2012-13 to 2018-19). The CIT(A) had decided these appeals ex parte, allegedly without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic during which the hearings were fixed. The assessee had moved an application for adjournment, which was ignored.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the impugned ex parte orders of the CIT(A), observing that the assessee was prevented from appearing due to compelling circumstances of the COVID-19 lockdown. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is at liberty to raise any other grounds.
Key Issues
Whether the First Appellate Authority erred in deciding appeals ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, particularly given the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on attendance.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH,
PER BENCH:
These appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, [Ld. CIT(A)] New Delhi, all dated 26.07.2022, pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19.
.-2479/Del/2022 and other appeals Rajiv Dalal.
We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the very outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee made a limited submission that the impugned orders of Ld. First Appellate Authority deserve to be set aside with the direction to hear the appeals de novo as he decided the appeals ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Ld. DR, though submitted that reasonable opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee, however, he did not have any serious objection against restoration of the issues to the First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication.
We have considered rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the subject appeals were fixed for hearing before the First Appellate Authority from time to time, as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order of Ld. First Appellate Authority. It is further observed that the last date of hearing of the appeal was fixed on 25.07.2022. However, on the said date, the assessee moved an application seeking adjournment. Ignoring assessee’s request for adjournment, Ld. First Appellate Authority proceeded to decide the appeals ex parte.
While doing so, he confirmed various additions made by the Assessing Officer. Facts on record reveal that the appeals were fixed mostly during the period when COVID-19 was at its peak. Therefore, compelling circumstances arising out of COVID-19 lockdown must have prevented the assessee from appearing before Ld. First Appellate Authority to conduct the hearing. Thus, in our view, the assessee had a valid reason for not appearing before Ld. First Appellate Authority to conduct the hearing of the appeals. In any case, one of the cornerstones of Indian judicial system is that no person should be Page 2 of 4 .-2479/Del/2022 and other appeals Rajiv Dalal. condemned unheard. Therefore, in our view, the assessee deserves a fair opportunity to represent his case before Ld. First Appellate Authority, which he did not get earlier as the appeals were decided ex parte.
4.1 In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of Ld. First Appellate Authority and restore the issues arising in the appeals back to him for de novo adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to raise any other ground or grounds, if he so desiresp.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2024.