SH. HARISH CHAND LODHI,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, BULANDSHAHR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting adequate opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was treated as non-est due to defects. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not follow principles of natural justice and denied sufficient opportunity for hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as non-est and rejecting it without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Ghaziabad dated 23.12.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the appeal as non-est being defective.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred and order is to be treated as void-as-initio as she did not followed properly the rule of natural justice and did not allowed sufficient opportunity of hearing, which is a prominent feature for any order to be valid.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) made her judgment arbitrary manner merely on the reliance placed of the facts presented to her by ITO and not allowing or giving any place for facts or evidences of the assessee.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified by rejecting the appeal and treating the order of the ITO to be valid and not giving sufficient opportunity to produce books and other relevant documents.
5. For that the assessee craves liberty to add, alter or amend any of these grounds of appeal.
2. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issuea in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order.
4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being herd to the assessee. 4.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.04.2020 for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026