CHANDER BHAN,HARYANA vs. ITO, JIND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4299/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 January 2017AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and ex-parte, thus unsustainable. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunities to both parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which upheld an addition of Rs. 14,70,000/-. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunities and violated principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a valid order by not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee and violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 18.5.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) Faridabad relating to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:-

1.

That the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad is against facts and is bad in law.

2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing exparte order and in not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not following principle of natural justice and equity.

4.

that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,70,000/- made by AO.

5. That the CIT(A) erred in law by upheld the order of the AO in charging interest u/s. 234A/B/C of the Income Tax Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forego any ground of appeal

at the time of its hearing.

3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

4. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order against the principles of natural justice by way of exparte order in not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee

5.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

6.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. It was the contention of the assessee’s counsel that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the by not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee which is against the principle of natural justice. I further find that Ld. CIT(A), has given his finding in the impugned order 18.5.2016 vide para no. 6 at page no. 4 of his order. The said relevant paras is reproduced as under:-

“6. Hence, after a careful consideration of these facts on record, and in the absence of any rebuttal offered by the assessee despite opportunities during the course of appellate proceedings, I hold that the additions have been rightly made by the AO on account of unexplained payment of Rs.

14,70,000/- made to M/s Sainik Finance &

Industries Ltd., as discussed by the AO on page 2 to 11 of the assessment order. Thus in view of these facts, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”

6.1 After perusing the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), I am of the considered view that that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking and exparte order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues in dispute afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties and pass a speaking order. However, the Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) and produce all the documents before him to substantiate his claim and not to take any unnecessary adjournment.

7.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →