SH. DEVINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 490/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merit and had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made various additions to the total income. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing and deciding the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 16.05.2017Pronounced: 19.05.2017

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 02.12.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing an ex-parte order and that too without granting adequate opportunity of hearing.

1.

2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned order is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts 2 Devinder Kumar in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.2,000/- on account of salary income.

4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.6,33,312/- on the alleged ground that assessee has not shown this income in his return-of income and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.5,39,469/- on account capital introduction and that too without observing the principles of natural justice.

6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A),has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 14,934/- on account of deduction under chapter VIA.

7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.

8. That the appellant craves to leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

3 Devinder Kumar 3. From Ground No. 1 of the assessee, it is clear that the main grievance relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was engaged in the business of vehicle contract rentals and used his own as well as other hired vehicles for the purposes of vehicle rental business. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,50,370/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The notice of hearing u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 12.08.2013 for fixing the case for 23.08.2013. The AO assessed the total income of Rs.16,40,085/- u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide his order dated 30.03.2015and made the various additions.

5.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition by passing the ex-parte order and mentioned that the notice dated 25.10.2016 was issued for hearing on 26.11.2016 but there was no compliance. Now the assessee is in appeal and the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that no notice for hearing was received by the assessee and that the ld. CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit. He requested that the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ld. DR did not object if the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(A).

4 Devinder Kumar 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issues raised by the assessee on merit and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to remand this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 19/05/2017)

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →