Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2014 of ld. CIT(A), Meerut.
During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceeding ex-parte qua the assessee and the appeal is disposed off by hearing the ld. DR on merit.
Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. Because the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in Law and against the facts of the appeal.
2 Gayatri Singh 2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was wholly unjustified in deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the facts & Grounds of the appeal. The order was passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 28.03.2014 whereas the order was served upon the appellant on 18.06.2014 whereas as per instruction No. 20/2003 F. No. 279/Misc 53/2003 dated 23.12.2003 the order must have been issued within 15 days from the date of order.
3. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant whereas the brief statement of facts and grounds of appeal
were written on the face of appeal memo on Form
35. The main ground in the appeal before Learned CIT (Appeal) was that Notice u/s 148 was never served upon the appellant, and the proceedings were barred by limitation. Besides this all the facts were very well disclosed in the return of income.
4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any of the ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
3. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the ex- parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2003 declaring an income of Rs.87,440/- plus agricultural income at Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter, the AO issued the notice 3 Gayatri Singh u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 17.03.2009 and since there was no compliance from the assessee, the AO framed the assessment ex- parte at an income of Rs.7,17,440/- plus agriculture income of Rs.75,000/-.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal in limine by observing that the assessee was not interested in perusing the appeal.
Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not cooperate either at the level of the AO or the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the AO was justified in framing the assessment ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) had given due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
4 Gayatri Singh 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 15/05/2017)