M/S. P K BUILD TECH PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3484/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 July 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not explicitly state that the notice for hearing was served on the assessee. Citing the principle of natural justice ('audi alteram partem'), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against an order. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not appear despite notices. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT argued that the CIT(A) order was passed without a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated the principle of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of hearing notice to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.07.2016Pronounced: 26.07.2016

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.

2.

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.”

3.

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.

4.

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)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →