SANGEETA SEHGAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6256/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard after considering the written submissions inadequate. The CIT(A) should have confronted this fact to the assessee and provided a specific opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) against additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 2(22)(e) was dismissed. The assessee invoked principles of natural justice, alleging lack of opportunity before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing a specific opportunity to the assessee when their written submissions were deemed insufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

Hearing: 16.08.2021Pronounced: 09.09.2021

Hearing conducted via Webex ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 20.05.2019 of CIT(A)-12 pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year is assailed on various grounds.

2.

At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee.

However, on considering the issue raised in ground No.1 wherein principles of natural justice are invoked including the pleading of lack of opportunity, it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merits after hearing the Ld. SR. DR.

3.

A perusal of the record shows that the additions made by the Assessing Officer referring to Section 2 (22)(e) were assailed by the assessee before the CIT(A). A perusal of the impugned order specific para-3 shows that the written submissions assailing the addition made by the Assessing Officer were filed before the CIT(A). As is evident, the submissions were considered to be not sufficient for interfering with the order and the addition made was sustained.

Examining the conclusion in the context of the ground raised, it is borne out from the record that this fact was not communicated to the assessee. It is well settled legally that in case the written submissions are inadequate for grant of relief prayed forth from a quasi-administrative authority, then the said Authority is duty bound to confront this fact to the appellant. It is evident from the record that admittedly this fact was not confronted to the assessee. In the absence of any specific notice thereon the assessee’s prayer made by the said ground has to be accepted. It is incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to specifically confront the fact to the appellant that based on the written submissions, the case cannot be allowed. Specific opportunity to be heard thereafter has to be provided. It is well settled that by mere filing of the written submissions Right to be Heard is not being waived off.

4.

Considering the ground and the facts on record for the reasons set out hereinabove, the impugned order, accordingly, is set aside and the issues are restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 09th September, 2021.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →