VIJAY RAMAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 719/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 August 2016AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not given adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a full opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide sufficient opportunity to present evidence. The assessee claimed to possess all necessary documentary evidence to substantiate their claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a sufficient opportunity to present their case and evidence before the lower authorities.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

Date of Hearing : 11-07-2016 Date of Order : 02-08-2016

O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 3.1.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, no need to repeat here for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Assessee draw my attention towards the order passed by the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) and stated that both the Page 1 of 4 authorities have not given sufficient opportunity for substantiating its claim before them and decided the issue in dispute against the assessee exparte without hearing the assessee, inspite of the fact that the Assessee is having all the documentary evidences in his possession. Therefore, he requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee for producing the necessary evidence for substantiating his claim before the AO.

4.

On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the request of the Assessee and stated that both the authorities have given sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Assessee did not avail the same, therefore, the Appeal filed by the Assessee may be dismissed.

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with. I find considerable cogency in the contentions raised by the assessee that AO as well as ld. CIT(A) both have not given sufficient opportunity for substantiating its claim before them, inspite of the fact that the Assessee is having all the documentary evidences in his possession. I have also seen that assessee has filed the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 69 in which he has attached sufficient evidence for substantiating his claim. In the interest of justice, I am of the considered view that all the documentary evidences in his possession goes to the root of the matter and would be very much relevant to decide the issue involved in the instant appeal, hence, in the interest of justice, the issue in dispute is remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh under law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard to the assessee.

5.1 Assessee was present during the hearing and undertake to appear before the AO and assured me not to take unnecessary adjournments and requested that direction may be issued to him to appear before the AO for 03.10.2016 for substantiating his claim before the AO. In the interest of justice, accordingly, the assessee is directed to appear before the AO on 03.10.2016 at 10.00 AM to substantiate his claim and produce all the documentary evidences and shall not take unnecessary adjournment.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02-08-2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →