Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, & SHRI L.P. SAHU,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, & 6808/Del /2013 [Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2010-11] Smt. Alka Kalra Vs. The A.C.I.T House No. 1438, Ward - 1 Sector 14, Hisar Hisar PAN : AQUPL 7073 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 16.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 18.03.2016 Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-Rohtak, dated 12/11/2013, passed in first appeal No. 508 & 509/RTK/12-13, for A.Ys 2008-09 & 2010-11.
The common grounds raised by the assessee read as under:
“1. That the worthy Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak has grossly erred in law, facts and in principles of natural justice in passing the order u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short] in the instant case.
3. That the worthy Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak has not exercised her powers and applied his mind judiciously in the instant case as the appellant was really in trouble during the appellate proceedings. The father in law of the appellant was seriously ill and she could not furnish any written submissions during the appellate proceedings and in the absence of same the worthy ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order.
That the worthy Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak was justified in holding the view while deciding the appeal that the assessee appears to be a habitual offender as far as compliance is concerned whereas the fact is that the appellant was prevented with sufficient cause for non compliance during the appellate proceedings.
That the grounds of appeal taken before the worthy Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak may kindly be considered as grunds of appeal from appellant before the Tribunal.
6. That there are various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court etc in favour of the appellant in support of his grounds of appeal.”
None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing the arguments. However, on perusal of record, we find that the appeals can be heard in the absence of the
4. We have heard the arguments of the ld. DR and have carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before us. We find from the assessment order that the issues under consideration have not been decided by the AO in a proper manner and facts have not been appreciated in a judicious manner. We further find that the AO has passed an exparte order without providing the assessee due opportunity of being heard. On the basis of foregoing discussion and careful perusal of the operative part of the ld. CIT(A)’s conclusion, it is amply clear that the AO has decided the issue in haste by passing a cryptic order which is not sustainable. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) has also not properly considered the submissions and facts of the case and simply followed the AO’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by applying the ratio of various decisions. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) too has not given due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in spite of the assessee informing the serious illness of her father in law. The ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). However, he raised no serious objection if the appeal is restored to the file of the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice we restore the grounds of appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that the AO shall provide due and 4 & 6808/Del/2013 proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee without being prejudiced with the earlier impugned order. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2016.