M/S. ADVERT COMMUNICATIONS,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3866/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 March 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the assessment was completed at a significantly higher figure after several disallowances. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions as the assessee failed to comply with notices or provide explanations.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly confirmed additions without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA & SHRI K. N. CHARY

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kumar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXII, New Delhi, u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), relating to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income showing income of Rs.15,06,520/-. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.57,36,442/- after making following disallowances :-

1.

Disallowance in the case of Grasy Enterprises Rs.40,25,769/- 2. Disallowance in the case of Tribhuban Singh Fabricators Rs. 1,70,131/-

3. Disallowance in the case of Samser Khan Rs. 34,000/-

3.

Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions as no compliance was made to various notices issued to the assessee or adjournments were sought.

4.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. Admittedly, before ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s Representative attended on some dates, noted queries but no oral or written submissions/ explanations/ replies or evidences were filed and either no compliance was made on the date fixed for hearing or adjournments were sought. Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed count of various notices issued to assessee which remain un-complied. Ld. counsel submitted that assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the appeal has been decided ex-parte. No doubt, ld. CIT(A) had provided various opportunities as is mentioned in ld. CIT(A)’s order but at the same time, the addition should not be confirmed without following principles of natural justice. Ld. counsel has prayed for one more opportunity and, therefore, in order to impart substantial justice to assessee, we consider in the interest of justice to accept the assessee’s prayer in this regard and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of assessee’s appeal. There is no gainsaying that assessee will avail this opportunity and will cooperate in disposing of appeal.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of March, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →