Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for failure to respond to notices. The assessee claimed to have sought an adjournment due to a paralytic attack suffered by the concerned person, which was allegedly not considered.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 21.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13. contended before us that the Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order u/s 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) have addressed the additional ground filed by the assessee. It is the say of the ld AR that the application for adjournment filed by the assessee have not been considered by the NFAC/ld. CIT(A). The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the principles of natural justice were violated as the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deciding the appeal against the assessee as the assessee has not filed any reply to the notices issued.
In rejoinder, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the concerned person who was looking after the tax matters of the assessee was suffering from paralytic attack and hence he was unable to file any response before the Assessing Officer.
Page 2 of 4 material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to respond to the notices and file any reply. We find that the assessee had sought adjournment which was not considered. In the above factual matrix of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld.
CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering all the documents/evidence. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/ documents as required by the ld. CIT(A). allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2025.