MRS. KAVITA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2880/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 February 2017AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity to be heard, emphasizing that it should be used in good faith.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed because the assessee's authorized representative withdrew their power of attorney due to non-cooperation. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, arguing it was not their fault and seeking an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A) after their counsel withdrew due to alleged non-cooperation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 15.12.2016Pronounced: 15.02.2017

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 30.12.2013 of CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar pertaining to 2008-09 assessment year on various grounds. The parties were heard only on Ground No.3 which reads as under:-

3.

“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.2 lacs made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inspite of furnishing information, PAN and Ward of assessment etc. from the creditors namely, Sarika Goyal Prop. Vishu Printers.” 2. The Ld.AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that as per the impugned order, three specific opportunities were given to the assessee and no adjournment was stated to have been filed. Referring to page 2 para 1 of the impugned order it was submitted that the CIT(A) noted that the Ld.AR withdrew his Power of Attorney before the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee was not co-operating in finalizing of the appeal. The following extract from the CIT(A)’s order was heavily relied upon “As discussed above the Ld.AR for the appellant vide letter dated 30.12.2013 withdrew his Power of Attorney on the ground that the appellant was not cooperating in finalization of appeal. Thus in absence of any compliance made, there is no other alternative left but to pass the order on the basis of material evidence available on record.”

2.1. In these circumstances, it was his limited prayer that for no fault of the assessee, the appeal has been dismissed as due to some problems with the counsel, the assessee remained unrepresented. Accordingly, it was his prayer that the opportunity of being heard I.T.A .No.-2880/Del/2014 Kavita vs ITO

Page 2 of 2 may be granted and he would give his oral undertaking that the assessee shall participate in the proceedings. The Ld.Sr.DR had no objection to the said prayer. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Accepting the oral undertaking of the Ld.AR the impugned order in the interests of justice is set aside and the issues are restored back to the file of the CIT(A). It is advised that the opportunity so provided to the assessee is used in good faith by participating fully and fairly before the CIT(A). It is made clear that in the eventuality of abuse of the same the Ld.CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order on the basis of material available on record. Accordingly, in terms of the above, the issue is restored back to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 15th of February 2017. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

I.T.A .No.-2880/Del/2014 Kavita vs ITO

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →