Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed multiple appeals challenging ex parte orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The assessee's counsel argued that the appeals should be heard de novo, asserting that the Ld. CIT(A) denied reasonable opportunity of being heard, particularly due to compelling circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex parte despite the assessee's adjournment request and confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. Recognizing that the hearings occurred during the peak of COVID-19, the Tribunal found the assessee had valid reasons for non-appearance. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the Ld. First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication with proper opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding appeals ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.
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.