MR RAJ KUMAR GOEL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) should be set aside. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that no notice was received for the specific hearing date of 09.12.2015. The Tribunal accepted the submission that the adjournments were sought because the assessee's counsel was out of station. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the order was to provide the assessee with the benefit of a hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order passed without proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also cautioned that this opportunity should not be abused, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Raj Kumar Goel (M/s Goel Kirana Store), filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Noida, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee had returned an income of Rs. 1,76,700/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 34,00,000/-, which the assessee challenged before the CIT(A). The case was fixed for hearing on multiple dates, with adjournments sought on earlier occasions. On 09.12.2015, the scheduled hearing date, neither an adjournment was moved nor did anyone appear. Consequently, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The assessee's counsel argued that no notice was received for the specific hearing date of 09.12.2015, violating the principles of natural justice. The Revenue did not appear at the ITAT hearing.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an order without serving a valid notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the assessee's right to a fair hearing, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that no valid notice was served for the hearing on 09.12.2015, and the postal authorities returned the notice unserved. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) in absentia, without providing a valid opportunity to be heard, is against the principles of natural justice and should be deleted. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no argument from the Revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-3’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 29.12.2015 of the CIT(A)-1, Noida pertaining to 2011-12 on various grounds.
At the time of hearing, an adjournment was moved by the Revenue. However, considering the material available on record and in the face of the objections of the Ld. AR, the request for time was rejected. The Ld.AR was heard only in respect of Ground No.1 which reads as under:- 1. “Ld. CIT(A was not justified to pass the order without having served a valid notice, as stated in the order, notice fixed for last date of hearing on 09.12.2015 returned unserved by the postal authorities. The order of Ld.CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and is liable to be deleted having passed in absentia without providing a valid opportunity of being heard, as the appellant did not have any knowledge of the appeal fixed on that date.”
The facts relatable to the said ground are that the assessee returned an income of 3. Rs.1,76,700/-. The AO for the reasons set out in his order made an addition of Rs.34,00,000/-. The assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). Before the First Appellate Authority, the case was fixed for hearing on various dates on which dates adjournments were moved. Ultimately, the case was fixed for hearing on 09.12.2015 on which date neither any adjournment was moved nor any one appeared. In these circumstances, the additions made was confirmed. The Ld.AR submitted that for the specific date of hearing, he had not received any notice. The assessee it was submitted sought time on the earlier occasions as his counsel stated that he was out of station. In these circumstances, it was his prayer that the order passed without hearing, the issue may be set aside and an opportunity of being heard may be provided.
I.T.A .No.-2212/Del/2016
Considering the prayer, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned order giving the assessee the benefit of double that for the specific date of hearing, notice was not received by him. The submissions that the adjournments were sought because of the counsel is also accepted. While so holding it is hoped that the opportunity so provided is not abused by the assessee and is utilized by making full and proper representation before the CIT(A. As failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a speaking order on the basis of material available on record. With the afore-said observation, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored back to the CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 07th of November, 2016.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
