What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that a proper opportunity of being heard was not provided as the last notice of hearing was not served.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Suraj Ali Khan, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2017

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

Hearing: 11.04.2017Pronounced: 11.04.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Amit Shukla, JM : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Suraj Ali Khan, Vs Income Tax Officer, 93, Ground Floor, Shahpur Jat, Ward-62(3), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AQKPK4335Q Assessee by : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred: i) In not allowing effective opportunity to the appellant to represent his case as the last notice was not served on him, being out of Delhi to his home town in Kolkata on the occasion of Diwali. ii) In sustaining the addition of Rs.30,79,899/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed receipts as per 26AS, while the 2 Suraj Ali Khan corresponding expenses to earn those receipts had not been taken into account. iii) In ignoring the fact that the appellant is to be assessed on the income embedded in the gross receipts and not on the gross receipts itself. iv) In ignoring the expenses incurred by the assessee relating to the gross receipts which had been omitted to be taken into account of a bank account of a bank account maintained by the assessee due to clerical mistake of the accountant. The appellant craves leave to add, modify, substitute, delete any of the grounds of appeal

on or before the date of hearing.”

3. The main grievance of the assessee relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without serving the notice of hearing. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of the grounds of appeal and also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without affording a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the notice of hearing was also not served upon the assessee.

4. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order nowhere stated that 3 Suraj Ali Khan the notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. She also mentioned that the last date of hearing was 17.10.2016 and the order was passed ex-parte on 31.10.2016. It is well settled that nobody shall be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. In the present case, it appears that the due and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order 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.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/04/2017)

SURAJ ALI KHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments