Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-2’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 9.9.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2013- 14 on the following grounds:-
1. That the Ld. Authority below has grossly erred in passing the order which is erroneous and bad at law and against the facts & circumstances of the case.
2. That no opportunity of being heard has been given by the Ld. A.O before raising the demand.
That the said demand is against the principal of natural justice.
That the CIT(Appeals) have intimate to assessee or any notice before passing the order.
That Ld. AO has not considered the fact that there is a reasonable cause for delay in submission of return and Assessee has deposited the TDS alongwith the Interest due thereon.
That Ld. AD cannot raise the demand u/s 234£ through intimation u/s 200A of the Income Tax Act' 1961.
That the fees u/s 234A is neither a Tax nor interest and hence it cannot be claimed u/s 200A of the Act.
That the demand of late filing fees u/s 234£ after filing of return is not valid under law.
That the Commissioner of Appeal have did not give the opportunity of being heard. That my counsel attend the case many times but she did not attend the same and one day on 25/08/2015 due to strike and he told to my counsel your will come after next notice. Thereafter she passed the order before any intimation.
The assessee reserves the right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.
Notice of hearing was sent to both the parties and in response to the same none appeared on behalf of the assessee as well as Department, nor any application for adjournment has been filed by any of the party. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served to serve the notice again and again to the parties, therefore, I am deciding this Appeal as Exparte.
3. I have gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities especially the impugned order and I find that ld. CIT(A) vide para no. 2 has issued the notice to the assessee, but the assessee did not attend the proceedings. For ready reference, I am reproducing the relevant para no. 2 of the impugned order as under:- “2. None put in effective appearance on behalf of the assessee for the hearings fixed on the given dates, despite issue of notices by Registered post /Speed post, as duly served. A brief schedule of non- appearance of the assessee is as follows:-
Issue of notice u/s. Hearing of fixed for Response of the 250(1) appellant. 8.10.2014 15.10.2014 None attended 15.10.2014 31.10.2014 None attended Request for adjournment 31.10.2014 24.11.2014 None attended Request for adjournment 27.4.2015 07.5.2015 None attended 10.6.2015 25.6.2015 None attended 13.8.2015 25.8.2015 None attended
4. Keeping in view of the notice issued to the assessee and the time granted by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, I am of the view that sufficient opportunity has not been given by the Ld. First Appellate Authority to the assessee for substantiating its claim before the ld. CIT(A). After perusing the aforesaid impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), I find that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and provisions of section 250 of the I.T. Act has not been complied with. In my considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in this regard by relying upon the case laws as cited in para no. 4 at page no. 2 of the impugned order. Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues on merits. It is a settled law that even the administrative orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Hence, I am of the view that in this case the issues in dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law. Accordingly, the issues in dispute are set aside and restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issues in dispute afresh and pass a proper and speaking order considering the merits of the case. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard.