DELHI UP MADHYA PRADESH TRANSPORT CO. (WEST),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 63(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative had resigned, and the assessee was unaware of the hearing dates, preventing proper representation. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a transport company, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after the Assessing Officer made additions to its income. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee due to unforeseen circumstances.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 19/09/2017 passed by CIT(A)-20, New Delhi for assessment year 2013-14.
The grounds of appeal
are as under: 1. “Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeal) has erred in passing the appeal order ex-parte.
2. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding "that appellant has deliberately not complied with the notices”. Actually out of the four dates given by the CIT [Appeals) the notice for on 07/06/2017 was not received and on 11/07/2017 and 09/08/2017 an application for adjournment was granted by the learned CIT.
3. For compliance on 11/09/2017, the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause as the accountant who was appearing in this case, suddenly resigned.
4. Learned CIT [A) has passed the order dismissing the appeal without application of mind and on surmises and conjectures and is bad in law needs to be cancelled. 5. Learned CIT has failed to discuss and adjudicate on the grounds of appeal
on merits.
6. Learned CIT Appeals did not appreciate that disallowances made by Assessing Officer have been made on adhoc basis and without application of mind.
7. Learned CIT [Appeal) has erred in not appreciating that the accounts are audited and books of account were produced before the Assessing Officer and be did not find any defect.
8. Learned CIT has failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not find any expenses which are not verifiable.
9. Learned CIT (Appeal) has observed that the net profit of 0.62% is very low without pointing out any comparable cases or the observations of the assessing officer who was satisfied with the replies submitted by the appellant.
10. The order passed by the learned CIT appeal is bad in law and has been made in a hurry and need to be set aside.
11. Appellant prays that the order of CIT be set aside and proper opportunity be given to appellant to present his case on merits Appellant craves leave to add, modifying Grounds of Appeal.”
3. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of Cargo Movement, Transport contract and daily road transport services, carry of goods, loading and unloading of goods to and from one destination to other destination under the name and style of M/s Delhi UP Transport Company (West). The assessee firm consists of the six partners. Return of income was filed on 29/9/2013 declaring income of Rs. 26,29,140/-. The Assessing Officer made various additions and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.58,33,010/-.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee despite giving notice which has not return back. Therefore, we proceed on the basis of the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) and the contentions taken before these authorities by the assessee.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. From the grounds of appeal it emerged that before the CIT(A) the Representative of the assessee has suddenly resigned and the assessee was not aware of the next date of hearings before the CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee could not represent the case properly. It will be appropriate to remand back the entire issue to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of each of the grounds taken before the CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
