HIMALAYAN AUTO ERA (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 225/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte, and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo assessment, with an opportunity for the assessee to participate.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions in the assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee contended that both lower authorities violated principles of natural justice by not allowing participation and submission of documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case and documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 08/07/2025Pronounced: 16/07/2025

(A.Y 2017-18) Himalayan Auto Era (India) Vs. DCIT Private Limited Circle-2(1) (1), Haldwani Plot No. 61, 68, Sector IIDC, Uttarakhand IIE, SIDCUL, Rudrapur, U. S. Nagar, 263153, Uttarakhand PAN: AACCH0708D Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Amit Goyal, Adv& Sh. Pravav Yadav, Adv Revenue by Sh. S. K. Chatterjee, CIT DR Date of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/NFAC’ for short), Delhi dated 27/11/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The Assessee filed return declaring income of at Rs. 69,62,780/-.

An assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed vide order impugned dated 2711/2024. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the order impugned of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Further submitted that even before the assessment proceedings A.O., assessee could not participate and submit requisite documents, thus, submitted that both the Lower Authorities have violated principals of natural justice. Thus sought for allowing the Appeal.

4.

The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record . Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings and even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de- novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate and produce requisite documents before the A.O. in the assessment proceedings.

6. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →