Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. P K Build Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, B-47, Sector-51, Ward-14(1), Noida-201301, U.P. New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCP2286K Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2016 ORDER
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.12.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XVII, Delhi.
In this appeal the assessee has raised as many as 8 grounds and the Ground No. 2 reads as under: “1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and thus violated the principle of natural justice.”
From the above ground, it is clear that the grievance of the assessee relates to the passing of the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. During 2 PK Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the appeal is disposed off ex-parte after hearing the ld. Senior DR on merit.
4. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the various notices were issued to the assessee, however, the assessee did not attend and complied with the notices issued. He, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and disposed off the appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR supported the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal ex-parte and submitted that there was no alternative except to decide the appeal ex-parte because the assessee did not appear on the date fixed for hearing. She also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) disposed off the appeal of the assessee on merit. Therefore, the impugned order may be affirmed.
I have considered the submissions of the ld. Senior DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) although mentioned that various notices were issued to the assessee, however, nowhere he stated that the notice issued for hearing of the case was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3 PK Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 26/07/2016)