LAKHI CHAND,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order denied the assessee an opportunity of being heard and the appeal was not decided on merits. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance with notices and lack of required documents. The CIT(A) noted that notices were returned undelivered and the assessee did not appear.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the appeal should have been decided on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI
For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Mr. Sri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Noida, Dated 03.12.2018, for the A.Y. 2010-2011.
We have heard the Learned Representative of the Department through video conferencing and perused the material on record.
2 ITA.No.6419/Del./2019 Shri Lakhi Chand, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
Briefly the facts of the case are that assessment is framed under section 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2017. The assessee challenged the said Order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that appeal is filed before him online, however, only Form No.35 is available on the Official Website of the Department. It is also noted that copy of the assessment order, demand notice and challan of the fees for filing appeal is not available on record. He has, therefore, issued notice for 05.09.2018 requiring the assessee to produce on record the aforesaid documents. However, there was no response. The Ld. CIT(A) further issued notice for 03.12.2018 which was also not complied with. Further notice was issued for 17.12.2018 and in the absence of any reply from the side of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the notices sent earlier were returned by the Postal Authorities with the remarks that “no such person was found or that assessee has left the premises.” The Ld. CIT(A) noted that no other address is available on record. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) presumed that notice have been 3 ITA.No.6419/Del./2019 Shri Lakhi Chand, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. served upon the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of assessee and in the absence of aforesaid documents on record noted that the appeal of assessee cannot be admitted, therefore, appeal of assessee were dismissed.
After considering the submissions of the Ld. D.R. through video conferencing, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly show that no notice have been served upon the assessee for the date fixed before the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the appeal. Thus, it is a clear denial of opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, appeal of assessee have not been decided on merits. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal of assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee in accordance with Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
4 ITA.No.6419/Del./2019 Shri Lakhi Chand, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 5. In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026