DIVYA RATHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 29(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7876/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-submission of arguments. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard, as notices were not received or hearings were not conducted as expected.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Devina, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.04.2018Pronounced: 24.05.2018

Date of Hearing 26.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement 24.05.2018 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dt. 22.09.2017 of CIT(A)-10, New Delhi pertaining to 2013-14 AY on various grounds. However, the parties were heard only in respect to the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee in the present appeal.

2.

For ready reference, it is reproduced hereunder: “2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the order without giving assessee a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard in clear violation of principle of natural justice.”

3.

The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee deriving income from salary and interest returned an income of Rs. 11,92,920/-. Addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- was made in the scrutiny proceedings resulting in the assessed income being concluded at Rs. 16,72,920/-. The issue was carried in appeal before the CIT(A), however, the appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to make any submissions. The Ld. AR inviting attention to para 3.1 of the impugned order submitted that on each of the three dates the appeal was fixed for hearing the assessee was represented and time had been sought. On 24.07.2017, it was submitted that no hearing took place. For the next date, notice fixing the for hearing on 17.8.2017 was never received by the assessee. Accordingly, it was his limited prayer that the opportunity of being heard may be provided by setting aside the issue back to the file of the CIT(Appeals).

4.

The Sr. DR on considering the same had no objection to the remand. She was required to address whether the remand be made to the AO or the CIT(Appeals). The Ld. Sr. DR considering the fact that no evidences were filed before the Assessing Officer submitted that it may be remanded to the AO as fresh evidences may need to be filed which would necessitate enquiries etc. The Ld. AR had no objection to the said request.

5.

In the light of the submissions of the parties before the Bench which I find are supported by material available on record and also accepting the oral undertaking given by the Ld. AR that the assessee shall participate fairly, the impugned order is set aside back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. While so directing it is hoped that the opportunity so provided is utilized by the assessee fully and fairly by making proper compliances. It is made clear that in the eventuality of abuse of the same the AO would be at liberty to pass an order on the basis of material available on record. Said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th May,2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →